In the darkness the trees are full of starlight (henwy) wrote,
In the darkness the trees are full of starlight
henwy

  • Mood:

Quote of the Day

"Liberalism is a whimsical luxury of the very rich and the very poor. Neither of which have much a stake in society."

It's really true if you think about it. You know how we're constantly told that the republicans are the party of big money, that they receive huge donations from billionaires and companies? I looked up the stats and realized it's complete bullshit. Here were the numbers for 2001:

The RNC’s average contribution in 2001 was $57.07, with 1,437,370 donations. That’s an average of 5,727 contributions for each deposit day in 2001. 78% of the money raised was federally regulated “hard” dollars.

In case you don't recall, 'soft' money is the unlimited crap that comes from the ultra rich and and companies/unions/etc. Democrats picked up over half of their donations from such sources before the restrictions of mccain feingold went into effect while the republican canndidates have always recevied a higher proportion from hard money sources. You know how Dean has been lauding how 'ordinary people' are the ones donating on average 78 dollars at a time to his campaign? True there's a two year difference since the numbers aren't in for the RNC currently, but I'll bet it's similar. The DNC refuses to release their average donation stats supposedly, and when I searched their site I found zilch. I found the above on the RNC site in half a minute.

No wonder the libs are forced to bypass the campaign finance laws with bullshit like moveon and other liberal action groups. They know that there's no way for them to funnel huge contributions into the process anymore and that the repubs have always kicked their asses in hard money contributions, the ones from average, individual americans that are capped and federally regulated. Any wonder why liberals suck? They talk a good game about wanting to take the big money out of politics but they're the first to bend and break the rules to suit themselves.

Found the stats for recently:

"Last year, the Republicans' national, senatorial and congressional campaign committees raised nearly $183 million in strictly regulated hard money, more than twice the $81 million raised by Democratic committees, according to PoliticalMoneyLine, a Web site that tracks political money. Bush, in turn, has raised about $131 million in hard money, three times the $41 million raised by his closest Democratic competitor, Howard Dean."

So which is a better example of being 'of the people' when one party recevied most of its money from small individual contributions from citizens and the other receives most of theirs from unions, companies, and billionaires.
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 0 comments