Skip to main content

View Diary: "Conservative Media"? No, not really (79 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  link doesn't work (0+ / 0-)

    your link goes to the open secrets home page, not the data set that you posted.
    please to fix.

    It would clarify the main question I have, which is  when you say "got money from Newscorp" does that mean a contribution from the corporate coffers or that employees made to the candidate?

    because employees do not equal the corportation. With huge offices in New York City it's reasonable to assume that lots of liberal/democrats work there despite not agreeing with their point of view.

    I know at least two of them, in fact.

    If you aren't outraged, you are an idiot

    by indefinitelee on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 09:45:52 AM PDT

    •  indefinitelee - It's employee contributions (4+ / 0-)

      Corporations are prohibited by law, The Tillman Act of 1907, from contributing to any campaign for federal office. Post Citizens United corporations have more flexibility regarding how they fund independent expenditures, but they can't make direct campaign contributions.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 10:03:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  it is all contributions made in that company's nam (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Victor Ward

      employees, pacs, all of it.

      As for your point about employee contributions, I addressed that in the earlier diary. The bottom line is that removing all the individual employee contributions from the figures, does not change the proportions at all:

      In another thread, someone made what is actually a very perceptive criticism of the figures I cite above -- that they include individual employee contributions, and that while individual contributions get lumped together with the money from their employing corporation, they don't necessarily reflect the interests of the corporation.

      But . . .

      When you look at solely PAC contributions, which are solicited solely by the corporations from people who agree with their interests, the same pattern remains.  An example is the health care industry:

      PAC Contributions to Federal Candidates
      Election cycle:  

      Health Professionals: $10,619,892
      65% to Dems / 35% to Repubs

      Health Services/HMOs: $1,873,572
      65% to Dems / 34% to Repubs

      Hospitals/Nursing Homes: $3,039,694
      70% to Dems / 30% to Repubs

      Misc Health: $29,700
      32% to Dems / 68% to Repubs

      Pharmaceuticals/Health Products: $5,777,681
      60% to Dems / 40% to Repubs

      Total Amount:    $21,340,539
      Total to Democrats:    $13,732,290     (64%)
      Total to Republicans:    $7,583,749     (36%)
      Number of PACs making contributions:    104

      Compare with 2004 when the Repugs were in power:
      PAC Contributions to Federal Candidates
      Election cycle:  

      Total Amount:    $31,629,423
      Total to Democrats:    $10,821,842     (34%)
      Total to Republicans:    $20,783,931     (66%)
      Number of PACs making contributions:    106

      In non-individual PAC donations, the health industry still follows the same pattern that every other industry does when we include the individual contributions -- the corporados give money to both sides, and the lion's share still goes to whoever holds power at the time.

      My hypothesis as to why individual contributions don't vary much from corporate contributions is that most employees simply don't care about politics and don't pay much attention to it, and merely give money when their employers says it's in the company interest to do so.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site