If lobbyists give a politician enough money, they think they own that politician. And they’re probably right.
Let’s see who’s giving what to who ... and who "owns" which candidates.
After all, if you give a candidate $2,300, and convince 100 of your friends/co-workers/underlings to give him $2,300, that’s $232,300. You might expect significant favors when it comes time to make the next round of laws.
I’m going to show you charts from Opensecrets.org which shows contributions to candidates from selected industries. This gives us an idea which industries might expect favors if certain candidates get elected. One caveat: Corporations only give money if they think it’s going to do them any good. So don’t think the fact that Mike Huckabee gets only a few bucks means he’s a "clean" candidate. It’s just the big corporations think he has little chance of winning.
Also, there are no 100% clean candidates. This isn’t a purity test. It’s a gauge of potential political influence.
BANKS
The banks are in a world of hurt, with bad mortgages on one side and a liquidity crisis (actually a solvency crisis, but that’s a topic for another diary) on the other side. The credit crunch alone – not including all those bad mortgages – could cost the big banks about $250 billion.
The banks will be looking for taxpayers to bail them out. Who are the candidates most likely to do that?
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are way, way ahead of the pack on this. The big banks might be right in thinking they’ve bought some serious leverage with these two. John Edwards only comes in eighth. He’s even behind Bill Richardson.
OIL & GAS
Oil and Gas companies have been making a killing, and with oil probing $100 per barrel, that’s not about to change soon. They get many, many billions of dollars in US government subsidies and tax breaks alone. The House of Representatives recently made news by threatening to take away $14 billion in federal oil and gas tax breaks
and other benefits over the next 10 years. Of course, that law doesn’t have a chance in hell of passing unless the President is behind it. Which Presidential candidates do the oil companies think will help them out of this bind and make them $14 billion richer?
As you can see, Guiliani is the oil company favorite, followed closely by Mitt Romney. However, Hillary Clinton makes the top three. Obviously, Big Oil doesn’t think it has much to fear from her. Barack Obama comes in at #7 (and good for him!) but you have to get all the way down to #11 to find John Edwards.
Why? Maybe because Edwards has said: "I'm very open to the possibility of an excess profits tax," So he’s threatening MORE than $14 billion in pain for oil companies. Yeah, Big Oil might not want him in the Oval Office.
PHARMACEUTICALS
Another problem on the minds of many Americans is the high cost of drugs. Grandma is having to choose between buying food and filling her prescriptions. A lot of ideas are on the table. But who do the drug companies want to see in the White House. That might tell you who you DON’T want to vote for (if you want lower drug prices.
Hillary Clinton has the Rx for success with drug companies, but Barack Obama runs a very close second – only 2.9% behind Ms. Frontrunner. John Edwards is all the way down at #10, even behind the zombie-fied Fred Thompson and "snowball in hell’s chance" Ron Paul. It might be fair to say that drug companies think John Edwards is going to cost them a lot of profits.
But it sure doesn’t look like they’re worried about the impact of Hillary and Barack’s health plans on the bottom lines, are they?
Speaking of health plans ...
INSURERS
Insurers LIKE Chris Dodd a lot. This was an eye-opener for me (I’ve given money to Chris Dodd’s campaign to thank him for his spirited defense of the Constitution). Mitt Romney and Guiliani are up there, of course. And Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama also rake in plenty of bucks from the insurance industry.
John Edwards comes in at #8. That puts him ahead of "no chance" Joe Biden and (R-Cryptkeeper) Fred Thompson. But just to give you another comparison, Obama is pulling in 200% more money from insurance companies than Edwards. Makes you think a little, maybe?
HEDGE FUNDS
One of the charges we hear from supporters of other candidates is that John Edwards "takes money from hedge funds." Well, before you start clutching at your pearls, let’s see who REALLY gets money from hedge funds ...
Guiliani, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama run 1-2-3 in money from hedge funds. And Hillary only gets 0.4% more money from hedge funds than Barack does – statistically insignificant. Hillary does get 280% more than John Edwards. Take that however you like.
LAWYERS
Surely, Edwards gets money from trial lawyers ... icky, disgusting trial lawyers. It’s funny how the talking-point parrots who hate trial lawyers so much are usually the first to scream for an attorney when the manure hits the fan.
Well, yes, Edwards gets money from trial lawyers ...
But he gets LESS than Hillary. And he only gets 2.7% more than Barack. Again, that’s statistically insignificant!
So, Barack is raking in nearly as much cash as JE from lawyers ... I guess we don’t have to hear that tired old saw anymore. But I won’t hold my breath.
One last one ...
SECURITIES & INVESTMENTS
This is another bunch of white-shoe bandits that want money shoveled as quickly as possible from your pockets to theirs.
Hillary Clinton leads the pack here, with Rudy Giuliani and Barack Obama close behind her. John Edwards is barely in the running. It would seem that Wall Street believes that John Edwards won’t make it easier for brokers to fleece investors.
I was motivated to do this diary because many Obama backers seem to believe their candidate represents "change." I sure don't see much change in how he gets money and is thus beholden to special interests. I do see a real change in how Edwards raises money.
Yes, John Edwards voted for the war in Iraq. He has since repented that boneheaded move. Obama, on the other hand, repeats right-wing talking points regularly and has voted to keep funding the war in Iraq. I have yet to see Obama repent his war-funding votes.
Many better bloggers than me have compiled lists of examples of how Obama seems to say one thing and does another. John Edwards has disappointed me with his actions in the past, but I think the death of his son and his wife’s battle with cancer, among other things, were life-changing events for John Edwards. I think he’s on a mission now to be the politician he should have been all along.
By refusing to give lobbyists a seat at the table ...
by choosing health care for all over ever-larger profits...
and by standing up for the working men and women in this country, he gives me hope for the future.
By all means, vote for whoever you think will be the best President. But as for me, as someone here said very well: "I’d rather be disappointed by John Edwards than see it coming with Hillary or Obama".