Corporate giving shifts to Democrats

[Contrary1]

Don't know how reliable this source is. I saw it on another forum, and hey...good news is good news.
:toast:

"Corporations, anticipating a power shift in the U.S. Congress, have begun increasing contributions to Democratic candidates, The New York Times reports.

Lobbyists are also trying to find allies among the Democrats. Some of them are talking about heading to Vail, Colo., in January -- when Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is holding a Speaker's Club ski retreat.

Attendance will be high, said Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic congressional aide turned business lobbyist. All Democratic events will see a big increase next year, no question.

While Republicans are still getting a majority of business contributions, the shift is the biggest since 1994, the newspaper said..."

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=de99cce47ed41db1

[Totally Committed]

1. You think corporations giving $$$ to Democrats in order to

control (or at least influence) the legislative agenda, should we win, is a GOOD thing?

The more corporate money in the pockets of our elected Democrats the less WE will matter to them come law-passing time.

The DLC is working hard.

TC

[1932]

5. Freakonomics has an interesting section on campaign donations.

Raising a lot of money correlates with winning elections. But it's not a causal relationship, Freakonomics argues. What draws money is the perception among those with money that the candidate is going to win.

Whether a candidate decides to turn a donation into a quid pro quo subsequent to the donation is up to the candidate. You can't begrudge Democrats for being perceived as winners.

I think the biggest risk with this story is that Republicans will play it up before the election in order to discourage people from voting Democratic.

[Contrary1]

6. That's how I read it too.

I see it more as betting on the winners than buying favors.

[Totally Committed]

7. I've wanted to read Freakonomics for a while now...

Maybe I'll pick up a copy at the library next time I'm down there.

Truly, though... how many corporations would let a candidate who takes a donation decide whether ir not is will be quid pro quo? You KNOW they are currying influence. The perception that we are the winning side now is only a glimmer of light compared to the foreboding all this corporate $$$/influence means to the people of this country.

TC

[1932]

8. If you don't give any movie, you're guaranteed not to get any time with

a staffer for a lunch or whatever. If you give money, you have a fighting chance to get the lunch and at least make your case.

[1932]

9. "money" not "movie"

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. it is NOT GOOD NEWS. It only means these effin pig suckers

are so twisted and greedy, that they are covering their bets, and they see their huge investment in the GOP falling apart.
They do NOT want an honest government, they only want control over who is in office. They will bribe, cajole, manipulate, and control who ever gets elected. All they are doing is hedging.

They are the internal enemy, and to accept their tainted gold is nothing less than dropping exactly what we stand for in exchange of temporary security. I believe Franklin had something to say about it.

[enough already]

3. I can't think of WORSE news

Give the money back to the pigs.

[Double T]

4. The masters of bribery are shifting to NEW horses.........

to be able to perpetuate their corruption and their ongoing dismantling of the middle class.