RNC and DNC Money and the most active lobbys

[M.D. Holloway]

Some interesting stuff I found.

Where the money is:

The Republican National Committee filed its report covering 2/1/2007-2/28/2007. The committee reports $7,193,876 in receipts and $4,405,188 in disbursements. Cash on hand totals $10,753,132 and there are no debts.
National Republican Senatorial Committee filed its report covering 2/1/2007-2/28/2007. The committee reports $2,432,910 in receipts and $1,453,936 in disbursements. Cash on hand totals $1,372,588 and debts total $794,571.
The National Republican Congressional Committee filed its report covering 2/1/2007-2/28/2007. The committee reports $3,795,010 in receipts and $3,309,214 in disbursements. Cash on hand totals $1,643,410 and debts of $10,393,184.

Total Cash: $13,769,130
Total Debt: $11,187,755


The DNC Services Corp./Dem. Nat'l Committee filed its report covering 2/1/2007-2/28/2007. The committee reports $4,607,507 in receipts, $4,102,590 in disbursements, and $4 million of debt. Cash on hand totals $7,006,671.
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee filed its report covering 2/1/2007-2/28/2007. The committee reports $2,739,542 in receipts and $1,333,500 in disbursements. Cash on hand totals $2,459,812 and debts total $6,000,000.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee filed its report covering 2/1/2007-2/28/2007. The committee reports $4,333,711 in receipts and $1,766,610 in disbursements. Cash on hand totals $4,295,193 and debts of $9,250,000.

Total Cash: $13,761,676
Total Debt: $19,250,000

February Lobby Reports for 2/21/2007:

The US Telecom Assn reported spending $3,100,000 in the last half of 2006, down from the $15,280,000 they reported spending in the first half of 2006.

AT&T Services Inc and its Affiliates reported spending $13,595,451 in the last six months of 2006. In the first half of 2006 their lobbing was reported by AT&T $5,515,269, BellSouth $3,294,777, Cingular Wireless $4,740,000.

AARP reported spending $11,040,000 in the last half of 2006, down from the $12,120,000 they reported in the first half of 2006.

The American Hospital Assn reported spending $8,280,000 in the last half of 2006, up from the $6,780,000 they reported in the first half of 2006.

Pfizer reported spending $7,720,000 in the last six months of 2006, up from $4,500,000 reported for the first six months of 2006.

Boeing Company reported spending $5,120,000 in the last half of 2006, up from the $4 million they reported spending in the first half of 2006.

The Business Roundtable reported spending $5,320,000 in the last half of 2006, up from the $3,500,000 they reported in the first half of 2006.

The National Assn of Manufacturers reported spending $3,640,000 in the last six months of 2006, down from the $9,600,000 they reported spending in the first half of 2006.

Chevron reported spending $2,980,000 in the last half of 2006, down from the $4,500,000 they reported spending in the first half of 2006.

New disclosure reports show twenty companies or associations spent more than $5 million in the last six months of 2006 lobbying the legislative and executive branches.

Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. $31,440,000
U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform $17,780,000
AT&T Service Inc & Its Affiliates $13,545,451
AARP $11,040,000
American Medical Assn $10,740,000
Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) $8,840,000
American Hospital Assn $8,280,000
Exxon Mobil Corp $8,200,000
General Electric Co $8,020,000
American International Group $7,995,189
Northrop Grumman $7,834,365
Pfizer $7,720,000
National Cable & Telecommunications Assn $7,480,000
Southern Co $7,380,000
National Assn of Realtors $6,280,000
Altria $6,040,000
Amgen USA Inc $5,620,000
Edison Electric Institute $5,500,000
Business Roundtable $5,320,000
Boeing $5,120,000

As Congress is considering new disclosure requirements for lobbyists, lobby firms, and those companies and organizations that pay for lobbying, the lobbying industry is at an all time high. The final total for lobbying during the first months of 2006 shows $1,263,099,500 spent on lobbying the Executive Branch and the Congress. This is a new record level of spending. The average was $211 million in spending per month.

Spending in the first six months of 2006 increased $62 million (5%) over the previous record level set in the last six months of 2005 ($1.201 billion). Compared to the first six months of 2005, there was an increase of $101 million (8.7%).


What a deal, Iz gots to figuer a way in!

[TheMentat]

Those are some staggering numbers...

[rhjames]

imagine what we could do with those funds.......

on second thought, let's just make lobbying totally illegal.

Naw, Washington might implode.......

[RoninLB]

the biggest DC scam is pretending that Congress will actually do something besides bs'ing the voters and passing self entrenching laws.

Eliminate earmarks 100% and $ influencing lobbyists will have no reason to exist.

[Rick Lee]

I have no problem with those numbers. Lobbying is 100% protected by the 1st Amendment (right to petition the gov't. for a redress of grievances) and paying a lobbyist is one of the best ROI's you can get. Not that I like the fact that we have a need for lobbyists to keep the government off of people's backs. Just ask Bill Gates. Before the gov't. came down on Microsoft, they had I believe one lobbyist in DC and spent well under $1 million a year on the activity. After they realized what they stood to lose by not paying into the protection racket, they ramped up a serious lobbying effort and the gov't. has left them alone ever since.

And don't think this stuff is partisan. The big players hedge their bets and give to both sides. The party in power get the majority of the money, but the lobbyists always spread it around. When I worked at the RNC, we regularly got phat checks from the Nat. Educ. Assoc. and Handgun Control. Go figure.

[RoninLB]

Originally posted by Rick Lee

. Lobbying is 100% protected by the 1st Amendment (right to petition the gov't. for a redress of grievances) and paying a lobbyist is one of the best ROI's you can get. Not that I like the fact that we have a need for lobbyists to keep the government off of people's backs.

so what about eliminating earmarks 100% ?


what do you think would happen if eliminated ?

[Rick Lee]

Killing earmarks would be great and would put a lot of lobbyists out of business. But remember, most lobbyists are there to keep the gov't. off the backs of their clients, not necessarily to get gov't. handouts, unless you consider special tax breaks to be handouts too. I just look at them as the gov't. stealing less from them than they do from others.

[Superman]

Originally posted by Rick Lee
I have no problem with those numbers. Lobbying is 100% protected by the 1st Amendment (right to petition the gov't. for a redress of grievances) and paying a lobbyist is one of the best ROI's you can get. Not that I like the fact that we have a need for lobbyists to keep the government off of people's backs. Just ask Bill Gates. Before the gov't. came down on Microsoft, they had I believe one lobbyist in DC and spent well under $1 million a year on the activity. After they realized what they stood to lose by not paying into the protection racket, they ramped up a serious lobbying effort and the gov't. has left them alone ever since.

And don't think this stuff is partisan. The big players hedge their bets and give to both sides. The party in power get the majority of the money, but the lobbyists always spread it around. When I worked at the RNC, we regularly got phat checks from the Nat. Educ. Assoc. and Handgun Control. Go figure.

The first amendment protects CITIZENS, Rick. CITIZENS. And their (citizens') interests. Oh, nevermind. You've probably got RNC tattoo'd somewhere and you can't sense the difference between corporate interests and those of citizens. You think corporations are citizens. They are not. They don't vote. The don't speak on behalf of citizens. Why should we allow them to control our government? Yeah, Gates probably figured out that Microsofts predatory and anti-trust behavior can be protected by greasing politicians' palms. That still doesn't make it right.

[Rick Lee]

Uh, no. The First Amend. says "the people". And since not every person who wants to get the gov't. off their back can travel to Washington or possibly know how to effectively lobby their member of Congress and others, especially if the person they need to lobby is not from their state, they employ professional lobbyists and it IS one of the best ROI's you can get. I know I would want one if my job were in danger because of some pending gov't. action. And while they may not listen to me and certainly wouldn't have time to meet with every interested individual who might be affected, they will be able to meet with a representative from the industry, aka lobbyist, who knows how things works here.

[on-ramp]

Here is an excerpt from the Declaration of Indendence.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is in the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security."

There is no reason corporations should have ANY influence in our government. The government is in place to serve the "people".
get the ****** corporations out... blame the politicians, both dems and republs... if they really wanted to do it, they would.

the problem is that corporate funding helps politicians get reelected. Cut the funding, they'll all be running around like chickens with the head cut off.

[Rick Lee]

So, if the gov't. wanted to ban all cigarettes for good, do you think each and every tobacco farmer should be left to write letters to their Congressperson or Senator and the tobacco companies should have no recourse at all? C'mon. As long as companies employ people, pay payroll taxes and salaries which the gov't. can tax again, they should have some say in how the gov't. comes after them.

[Tobra]

Interesting that the DNC is budget is about 40% deficit and the RNC has cash surplus, with similar amount of cash on hand.

It is that GD GW Bush, it is all his fault

[Rick Lee]

Crazy thing is that the DNC gets most of their donations in large increments, like over $1000, while the RNC gets most of theirs in increments of under $100. The RNC has always had a super grass roots fundraising operation going. Terry McAuliffe recognized that and got the DNC started there. But they still have a long way to go.

[Superman]

Originally posted by Rick Lee
Uh, no. The First Amend. says "the people". And since not every person who wants to get the gov't. off their back can travel to Washington or possibly know how to effectively lobby their member of Congress and others, especially if the person they need to lobby is not from their state, they employ professional lobbyists and it IS one of the best ROI's you can get. I know I would want one if my job were in danger because of some pending gov't. action. And while they may not listen to me and certainly wouldn't have time to meet with every interested individual who might be affected, they will be able to meet with a representative from the industry, aka lobbyist, who knows how things works here.

I'm all for people banding together to pursue a cause or protect a freedom. No problem. But you are so deeply immersed in Republican propaganda that you can't seem to see the difference between a person and a corporation. Or between an association of persons (labor unions, professional associations, gun owner associations, etc) and a trade association (virtually the entire list of contributors you see).

Hey, if you think a group of corporations will carry your banner for you, then you go ahead and trust them to do that. I don't.

[Rick Lee]

I understand very well the difference between corps. and persons and I don't remember ever seeing a corp. vote when I went to a polling station. I also can't think of any corps. that compel their employees to contribute to political action funds like unions do, or as you call them "an association of persons".

Supe, I don't know what line of work you're in, but I wonder what tune you'd be singing if the gov't. decided to come after your industry and it directly threatened your livelihood. Write your Congressman? Organize a protest? Write a letter to the editor? Sign a petition? All are fine. But the most effective way is to hire a lobbyist who knows how to get things done. There's a good reason why they make so much money.

[Superman]

Originally posted by Rick Lee
So, if the gov't. wanted to ban all cigarettes for good, do you think each and every tobacco farmer should be left to write letters to their Congressperson or Senator and the tobacco companies should have no recourse at all? C'mon. As long as companies employ people, pay payroll taxes and salaries which the gov't. can tax again, they should have some say in how the gov't. comes after them.

There you go again with the same confusion. Blind trust in organizations (corporations) that regularly demonstrate their preference for profits over citizenry. Example abound.

You ask: "....and the tobacco companies should have no recourse at all?" Correct. The tobacco companies should have absolutely no input into the making of this decision whatsoever. Smokers can speak for themselves (or their association), and tobacco farmers can speak for themselves also. The tobacco companies should have absolutely no part in this dialogue whatsoever. It is insane that they do have a voice.

[Rick Lee]

And to put this discussion in terms we all can appreciate, why do you think our cars here in the US are so different than those in Europe? EPA and NHTSA put out tons of new regs every year that directly affects all car makers. They mandate the angle at which a windshield must sit relative to the driver, air-bag cut-off switches (which were introduced by lobbyists from car manufacturers), the color of our turn signal lenses (always lamer than the European models), mpg standards and on and on and on. I once asked a guy from BMW why they could never make a retro version of the 2002. He said because the US would be their biggest market and our gov't. has so changed the regs as to how cars can be built, that almost nothing of the original 2002 design would be allowed nowadays. BTW, all the car manufacturers have heavy-hitting lobbyists in DC. You think the car makers can keep up with all the nonsense implemented by EPA and NHTSA?

Alois Ruf's wife told me they actually come here once a year to catch up on all this stuff because they don't have a lobbyist do it for them.

[Rick Lee]

Originally posted by Superman
There you go again with the same confusion. Blind trust in organizations (corporations) that regularly demonstrate their preference for profits over citizenry. Example abound.

You ask: "....and the tobacco companies should have no recourse at all?" Correct. The tobacco companies should have absolutely no input into the making of this decision whatsoever. Smokers can speak for themselves (or their association), and tobacco farmers can speak for themselves also. The tobacco companies should have absolutely no part in this dialogue whatsoever. It is insane that they do have a voice.

That's complete BS. Tobacco companies are run by individuals who have a right to petition the gov't. for a redress of MANY grievances. The gov't. can't bring itself to ban tobacco, so they just keep punishing and extorting money from the industry. You think Joe Six Pack is gonna go to bat for them?

[Superman]

Originally posted by Rick Lee
That's complete BS. Tobacco companies are run by individuals who have a right to petition the gov't. for a redress of MANY grievances. The gov't. can't bring itself to ban tobacco, so they just keep punishing and extorting money from the industry. You think Joe Six Pack is gonna go to bat for them?

If an Association of Tobacco Company CEO's wants to lobby Congress, then fine. They are people. Or perhaps an association of tobacco company workers. Fine. But a consortium of tobacco companies, or even one independent tobacco company, is not okay in my view. I wonder if you see the distinction.

[Superman]

Originally posted by Rick Lee
And to put this discussion in terms we all can appreciate, why do you think our cars here in the US are so different than those in Europe? EPA and NHTSA put out tons of new regs every year that directly affects all car makers. They mandate the angle at which a windshield must sit relative to the driver, air-bag cut-off switches (which were introduced by lobbyists from car manufacturers), the color of our turn signal lenses (always lamer than the European models), mpg standards and on and on and on. I once asked a guy from BMW why they could never make a retro version of the 2002. He said because the US would be their biggest market and our gov't. has so changed the regs as to how cars can be built, that almost nothing of the original 2002 design would be allowed nowadays. BTW, all the car manufacturers have heavy-hitting lobbyists in DC. You think the car makers can keep up with all the nonsense implemented by EPA and NHTSA?

Alois Ruf's wife told me they actually come here once a year to catch up on all this stuff because they don't have a lobbyist do it for them.

I hope to see evidence that you understand the difference. Here, you bemoan auto manufacturers' practice of goading (lobbying) the gubmit into regulations that require US car specifications to change frequently. This is in the best interest of those corporations, and not in the best interest of motorists. See?

Also, next time you blame those darned liberals for these auto safety regulations, please first remember that today you correctly blamed the corporations and their lobbyists.