We Need New Blood in Congress

Open Secrets.Org tracks the financing of politicans. They explain the basic trend.

Most members of Congress — Democrats and Republicans alike — get the vast majority of their PAC contributions from business interests. Democrats usually get a substantial sum from labor unions; something Republicans rarely get. Newcomers to Congress – particularly in open seat races – may draw significant funds from ideological groups.

In almost all cases, the complexion of candidates’ financial backers changes once they win public office. The proportion of business dollars tends to rise, even for Democrats, as members get their committee assignments and begin tapping the industries they oversee for campaign contributions. Among incumbents, only the most liberal Democrats tend to get more money from labor unions than from business groups. Democratic newcomers, on the other hand, typically get strong labor support if they’re considered to have a good chance of winning election in the fall.

Here’s a familiar new member of Congress.

Patrick J. Murphy (PA-08)

Source of Funds:

Individual contributions $1,813,504 (74.9%)
PAC contributions $476,920 (19.7%)
Candidate self-financing $0
Other $130,491 (5.4%)

PAC Contribution Breakdown

Business $65,050 (11.3%)
Labor $152,600 (26.4%)
Ideological/Single Issue $359,938 (62.3%)

Here’s an entrenched member of Congress.

Albert Wynn (MD-04)

Source of Funds:

Individual contributions $314,849 (39.4%)
PAC contributions $474,875 (59.4%)
Candidate self-financing $0
Other $9,600 (1.2%)

PAC Contribution Breakdown

Business $348,861 (73.7%)
Labor $106,750 (22.5%)
Ideological/Single Issue $17,825 (3.8%)

Any questions? Contribute to Donna Edwards’ campaign to unseat Albert Wynn.

Wynn ranks 184th on Progressive Punch’s scale of Government Checks on Corporate Power and 171st on Making Government Work for Everyone, Not Just the Rich or Powerful. He’s hopelessly out of touch with his district.

We can already see that winning Congress is not enough. We need fresh leadership that is not beholden to business interests and lobbyists.

4 Comments

Crablaw on June 27, 2007 at 11:53 pm

The district should be represented by a member of the House Progressive Caucus. Imagine Strom Thurmond doing time in hell cleaning toilets in MD-04 for a vegetarian co-op. Or serving as a nanny for a black lesbian couple’s children. THAT kind of blue. It includes the outer perimeter of Takoma Park, aka “Granola Park.”

There are places in this country where Al Wynn would be a Democratic asset. Maybe Tennessee. Maybe Nebraska. Not this Papa Smurf-choking-on-a-blueberry-blue district in blue Maryland.

BooMan on June 28, 2007 at 12:16 am

exactly.

Red Harvest on June 28, 2007 at 1:44 pm

The lion’s share of the money that fuels the political machine, and effectively bankrolls the careers of Democrats and Republicans alike, comes from only a tiny fraction of the population, as this analysis from OpenSecrets makes clear.

BIG-TIME DONORS SMALL IN NUMBER

Less Than One-Tenth of 1% of Population
Gave 83% of Itemized Contributions

Less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the U.S. population gave 83 percent of all itemized campaign contributions for the 2002 elections, an analysis of campaign giving by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics has found.

Nearly 237,000 donors — just 0.08 percent of the total U.S. population and 0.11 percent of U.S. adults — were responsible for $728 million of the almost $873 million in political contributions that were itemized in campaign finance reports filed by federal candidates, political parties and political action committees.

Just over 600,000 people — 0.21 percent of the U.S. population and 0.28 percent of U.S. adults — gave contributions large enough to be itemized at all. During the 2000 presidential election cycle, 0.28 percent of the nation’s population, and 0.37 percent of U.S. adults, gave itemized contributions.

The depressing reality is that politicians of both major parties are equally dependent on this tiny clique of political fairy godmothers (and fathers) — thus, the prospects of any of them seriously defying the wishes of the wealth class on any issue of real substance is virtually non-existent.

As Louis Brandeis so sagely observed: “We can have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”

dkmich on June 28, 2007 at 3:48 pm

Only way to elect them and keep them honest is publicly funded elections. They will never bite the hand that funds them. The best democracy money can buy. That’s us.

Crablaw on June 27, 2007 at 11:53 pm

The district should be represented by a member of the House Progressive Caucus. Imagine Strom Thurmond doing time in hell cleaning toilets in MD-04 for a vegetarian co-op. Or serving as a nanny for a black lesbian couple’s children. THAT kind of blue. It includes the outer perimeter of Takoma Park, aka “Granola Park.”

There are places in this country where Al Wynn would be a Democratic asset. Maybe Tennessee. Maybe Nebraska. Not this Papa Smurf-choking-on-a-blueberry-blue district in blue Maryland.
- BooMan on June 28, 2007 at 12:16 am
  
  exactly.
Red Harvest on June 28, 2007 at 1:44 pm

The lion’s share of the money that fuels the political machine, and effectively bankrolls the careers of Democrats and Republicans alike, comes from only a tiny fraction of the population, as this analysis from OpenSecrets makes clear.

BIG-TIME DONORS SMALL IN NUMBER

Less Than One-Tenth of 1% of Population
Gave 83% of Itemized Contributions

Less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the U.S. population gave 83 percent of all itemized campaign contributions for the 2002 elections, an analysis of campaign giving by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics has found.

Nearly 237,000 donors — just 0.08 percent of the total U.S. population and 0.11 percent of U.S. adults — were responsible for $728 million of the almost $873 million in political contributions that were itemized in campaign finance reports filed by federal candidates, political parties and political action committees.

Just over 600,000 people — 0.21 percent of the U.S. population and 0.28 percent of U.S. adults — gave contributions large enough to be itemized at all. During the 2000 presidential election cycle, 0.28 percent of the nation’s population, and 0.37 percent of U.S. adults, gave itemized contributions.

The depressing reality is that politicians of both major parties are equally dependent on this tiny clique of political fairy godmothers (and fathers) — thus, the prospects of any of them seriously defying the wishes of the wealth class on any issue of real substance is virtually non-existent.

As Louis Brandeis so sagely observed: “We can have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”
dkmich on June 28, 2007 at 3:48 pm

Only way to elect them and keep them honest is publicly funded elections. They will never bite the hand that funds them. The best democracy money can buy. That’s us.

We Need New Blood in Congress

About The Author

BooMan

4 Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Comments