Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (51111)	10/23/2000 7:14:37 PM
From: Shadow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

"What percentage of the Republican coffers came from big business, and what percentage of the Democratic coffers came from big business?" What percentage of the Democratic coffers came from union members whose dues were taken by force and given to the Democrats against their will???

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (51111)	10/23/2000 7:17:54 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

You are absolutely correct, Flapjack!

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (51111)	10/23/2000 7:21:55 PM
From: Ish	Respond to of 769670

<<If that is not the truth, then why have the AFL-CIO, CWA, NEA, Teamsters and UAW all endorsed Gore this election? >> Back scratching stealing from the working man.

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (51111)	10/23/2000 7:28:38 PM
From: Kurthend	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

RE your statement >>The Republicans are indeed the party of fat cats and corrupt semi-criminal corporate types, and the Democratic Party is indeed the party of the common working man and common working woman. I will continue to hammer home that message because that is the truth.>> That is about correct as saying the Democratic Party is indeed the party of the stupid,lazy, and criminal element common working man and common working woman and the Republicans are indeed the party of the highly intelligent, energetic, go getters of America. That sounds as stupid as your statement. What is this cliche about "semi-criminal" corporate? Corporate America, read human beings, is what made this country what it is today. Who is this mythical Corporate America if not the same human beings that live in this country?

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (51111)	10/23/2000 10:57:16 PM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

<<What percentage of the Republican coffers >> comes from people like me, (hard working, by God) low level government employees who don't make enough to make contributing to political parties painless? I work with people like me and with few exceptions they choke on Gore. Bush will liberate us from the harmful effects of Clinton/Gore reinvention -- and this interminable 8 years will finally come to a welcome close. I wrote three or four small checks to the Bush campaign. It wasn't easy, but it was important. As for Gore's support from fat cat semi-criminal union bosses, I think they better check with their members. I think they'll find a lot of folks who, like me, can see through Gore's promises to fight for this-and-that. Gore is anti-freedom, pro-government dole, and pro-confiscation of the fruits of your labor.

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (51111)	10/24/2000 5:05:09 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 769670

Gore Is $6 Million Ahead in Campaign Cash By Ceci Connolly Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, October 21, 2000; Page A10 For the second month in a row, Vice President Gore has reported a cash advantage over his Republican opponent as the presidential race enters the final decision-making weeks. Reports filed last night with the Federal Election Commission show the Democrat with $6.2 million more in the bank than George W. Bush, an edge Gore advisers promise will be poured into last-minute television commercials in states where the contest remains dead even. Gore entered the final five-week stretch with $41.2 million on hand, compared with Bush's $35 million. On the Senate level, Republicans continue to hold a financial edge--nearly $4 million more in the bank than the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. But the Democrats enjoyed a fundraising spurt last month and have several high-profile, high-dollar events planned with President Clinton between now and Election Day. Each presidential candidate collected a general election check from the federal treasury for $67 million at the August conventions. In return, they pledged not to raise--or spend--any more money on their own candidacies. But they have helped fill the coffers of their respective parties and that money is now being recycled back into ads that boost the two nominees. So despite Gore's slight financial lead, Bush strategists predict the vice president will be overpowered by the deep pockets of the Republican National Committee, which had $19 million more in the bank at the end of September than the Democratic National Committee. To illustrate the point, one Republican operative pointed out that while the Bush and Gore campaigns matched each other dollar-for-dollar on the airwaves this past week, television advertising by the RNC was triple the DNC's $2 million in purchases. Gore senior strategist Tad Devine countered that the law guaranteeing candidates lower ad rates means the vice president gets more bang for his advertising buck. Federal law requires television stations to give federal candidates the cheapest available rate, while political parties and other advocacy groups must be market fares. "They're spending more money than us," Devine said of the Republicans. "But we have more ads on the air." Devine also said the Gore campaign has begun running spots on cable television, traditionally a cheaper, more targeted audience. Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer, noting that the GOP nominee's earlier convention meant Bush's general election check had to last longer, mocked the notion of Democrats bragging about money. "If they suggest they are not at a financial disadvantage, then that's one less excuse available to the Gore campaign to explain why they're not doing very well," he said. What is most notable about the end-of-September financial reports is the relative strength of the congressional arms of the Democratic Party. Political scientists Michael Malbin and Darrell West, both campaign finance experts, said they were struck by the robust fundraising drives on the Democratic side, especially with Republicans controlling Congress. Malbin, who heads the Campaign Finance Institute in the District, noted that in mid-October of 1998 the DSCC had a scant $1 million for its final push. Through Sept. 30 of this year, the committee had $11 million to the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee's $14.9 million. Earlier this month, the House campaign committees reported that they were essentially even, with Republicans reporting $22.8 million cash on hand, compared with the Democrats' $20.6 million. West, based at Brown University, said in terms of pure dollars, the reports are "encouraging news for the Democrats." In a nutshell, analysts say virtually no major candidate will lose for want of money this season and virtually no voter in a competitive state will be immune to the blur of political ads. "There's a law of diminishing returns on campaign expenditures," said West, author of "Checkbook Democracy." "It just produces more ad clutter and it becomes harder for voters to distinguish" between the ads and candidates. washingtonpost.com

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (51111)	10/24/2000 5:21:41 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 769670

From the Center for Responsive Politics: Business gave a total of almost $842million. Of that, 40% went to Democrats, and 59% went to Republicans. Given my observation about the tendency of business to support incumbents, that may be sufficient explanation of the split. Labor gave about $56million, although that does not count in kind help, like man- hours, merely direct contributions. In any case, 93% went to Democrats. "Ideological" special interest money totalled about $34million, and 51% went to Democrats. This is all as of the first of October, and there is this additional caveat from the Center: An important caveat must be added to these figures: "business" contributions from individuals are based on the donor’s occupation/employer. Since nearly everyone works for someone, and since union affiliation is not listed on FEC reports, totals for business are somewhat overstated, while labor is understated. Still, the base of large individual donors is predominantly made up of business executives and professionals. Contributions under $200 are not included in these numbers, as they are not itemized. opensecrets.org

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (51111)	10/24/2000 5:29:15 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 769670

Back to your questions: the unions back the Democratic Party because they are dubious about free trade, and eager to have the interests of their members protected at the expense of consumers and new entrants into the field. Many business are similarly corrupt, which is why they have no necessary ideological objection to supporting Democrats. Unions cover a minority of workers, and do not represent the interests of most workers, but only of some. Corporations gave even more to Democrats when they were the incumbents, but often the same people split their contributions as a hedge. Still, many business types do, in fact, understand that the Republicans are better for economic development in the long run.And, as they say, a rising tide lifts all boats.......