Thursday, July 30, 2009

GOP Housewife Conspiracy Part 2

Eric Ostermeier over at Smart Politics posted this finding on his piece which analyzed the "Housewife Shell Game" that liberal bloggers accused the GOP of playing..."Grace Kelly", blogger at MN Progressive Project even asked "who the parents are" of the GOP housewives/donors.

It's also the case that the 3 GOP U.S. Representatives also raise significantly more money from SMALL donors than the 5 DFLers.
In Q2 2009, Kline, Bachmann, and Paulsen raised $148,253 in small (unitemized) contributions, while Oberstar, Peterson, Walz, Ellison, and McCollum collectively raised less than half that amount - just $69,333.

As these are unitemized funds, it is impossible to know from the FEC reports as to what percentage are coming from in-state and out of state among small donations.

Fascinating findings. So the GOP wins both small money and big money individual contributions hands down.

And for "Grace Kelly" (any money on how closely she resembles Grace Kelly?)-- my mother is a retired social worker and my dad an independent realtor, both on a fixed income.

Former housewife Nancy Pelosi's dad was a U.S. Congressman and her family's net worth is $19 Million.

1 comment:

Jim said...

If the federal government didn't have so much power and influence, well beyond anything allowed in the Constitution, it wouldn't matter who was trying to "buy" or lobby the politicians. Sure, have your thousands of employees collectively donate a million bucks to one person or the other, but if the person accepting the money can't change policy in your favor (whether you consider it corruption or not, it's just not allowed due to Constitutional checks and balances), then it wouldn't matter. Interest groups could dump all the money into Washington that they wanted, and it wouldn't change anything. You think ______ should be subsidized, eh? Maybe it should be, and maybe it shouldn't, but it's not in our authority to do it, so your lobbying time and money is wasted here. Perhaps you should spend your time advertising to customers who will voluntarily give you money if you convince them it's good instead of lobbying a few hundred people who have the power to coerce millions of people to give you money, many of whom are opposed or oblivious to you receiving the money. Free markets? Huh? Legalized extortion, socialism, and central planning are way better.

Of course, that's just my fantasy land where politicians and judges would uphold their oath a straightforward reading of the Constitution, not become some "expert" in reinterpreting it or ignoring it.