Oil and drug firms pay for Bush's inauguration
Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday January 18, 2001
The glamour and glitz of Saturday's presidential inauguration is largely being funded by the industries which paid nearly $200m (£135m) to help get George W Bush elected - finance, pharmaceuticals and oil.
The Bush inaugural committee has so far raised more than $17m for the confetti, champagne and hors d'oeuvres that will be lavished on the party faithful at a constellation of grand balls in Washington.
The committee originally hoped to raise $30m, and there is still time for donations from aspiring movers-and-shakers in the new court, but so far the total has not matched President Clinton's haul of $33m for his first inauguration in 1993.
The profile of the donors, however, is not quite the same. Whereas both presidents received a great deal of money from investment houses and banks, who habitually back both horses in presidential races, the Bush inauguration has received disproportionate backing from drug and oil companies.
According to the Bush inauguration website, pharmaceutical and other healthcare corporations have put up a total of $1.7m - an impressive amount given that the maximum single payment is supposed to be $100,000, although that rule is frequently broken.
The drugs industry has a lot to celebrate. It backed Mr Bush to the tune of about $4m in direct contributions during the campaign, and the return on its investment is likely to be a halt to moves to regulate the costs of patented prescription drugs, and a more vigorous campaign against the production of generic substitutes abroad.
Oil companies gave a further $1m, a reflection of the Bush family's close personal ties to the industry and of the oil companies' excitement at the prospect of opening up the Alaskan wildlife refuge to exploration and drilling, as President-elect Bush has promised.
Sport has also proved a big giver. The New Orleans Saints and the Washington Redskins football teams each gave $100,000, as did the Murdoch-owned Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team and the Major League baseball association.
A spokeswoman for the watchdog Centre for Responsive Politics said that opposition to legislation to stop public money being earmarked for big stadiums could be involved.
The presidential transition continued on Capitol Hill yesterday with a series of confirmation hearings for Mr Bush's cabinet nominees.
Among them, John Ashcroft defended his record before sceptical Democrats on the Senate judiciary committee, who have argued that he is too extreme a rightwinger to hold the post of attorney general.
Mr Ashcroft distanced himself from several of the more inflammatory statements he made in his role as hero of the religious right, such as a claim that gun ownership was an essential counterweight to a "tyrannical government".
"I really regret it if anyone is offended by it," he said. "I mean no injury or disrespect to those individuals who don't have my views."
Guardian
-- spider (spider0@usa.net), January 18, 2001
Answers
So what. Who funds everything in this country? Well, that would be the people with the big bucks. How the hell can anyone do anything right? If GW got the cash from Pro-Choicers, would you feel better? And who funded the last several inaugurations? I guess you'll tell me it was some squeaky clean not self serving organization/s? If this country ran perfectly, there would still be someone dissatisfied with something. I am angry with the pharmaceutical industry too-but I am not willing to pretend that taking money from them as a political move is beyond the realm of acceptance. And let's just ask Californians how important the oil industry is to all of us, why don't we. I am always amazed at the interests you take in the negatives surrounding GW. I don't remember you're stand regarding Clinton, or later re Gore. Do ya really believe we'd have been better off with a third Democratic term in a row?
-- TRISH MCNAMARA (trish.mcnamara@sdrc.com), January 19, 2001.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trish, if you are angry at pharmaceutical companies, how can you feel it is acceptable for them to be so involved in the political process. Is Bush (or Gore if he won) gonna do anything about the sometimes criminal cost of much needed medication? No. Because he just got a big check to keep his mouth shut. How is this acceptable to you? Remember when democracy was, well, democracy. One person - one vote. Not one dollar - one vote.
greenspun.com |
