Newt Gingrich connects some dots.
In 2008 alone, the UAW gave $4,161,567 to the Democratic Party, including Barack Obama.
In return, the UAW received 55 percent of Chrysler and 17.5 percent of GM, plus billions of dollars.
Jun 11 2009
In a comment on my post yesterday, Will Wilkinson defended his parallel between Republicans and Democrats. I had granted him that there were parallels in their hypocrisy. But he went further, writing: I think some libertarians and conservatives are annoyed by my specific example of this pattern because they genuinel...
Jun 10 2009
Daron Acemoglu writes, [Prior to 1800,] growth was never based on continuous technological innovations; thus it never resembled the technology-based growth described in Chapters 13-15. Third, in most cases economic institutions that would be necessary to support sustained growth did not develop. Financial relations we...
Jun 10 2009
Newt Gingrich connects some dots. In 2008 alone, the UAW gave $4,161,567 to the Democratic Party, including Barack Obama. In return, the UAW received 55 percent of Chrysler and 17.5 percent of GM, plus billions of dollars.
READER COMMENTS
Commenterlein
Jun 10 2009 at 7:05pm
Newt Gingrich complaining about special interest politics and donations is pretty rich.
Pierre
Jun 10 2009 at 7:11pm
How much did the UAW donate to Republicans and the Republican party? Honestly I’d be surprised if the answer was “zero.”
Pierre
muirgeo
Jun 10 2009 at 7:34pm
Any numbers on how much Wall Street put into the lobby pot and how much THEY were paid off?
But I agree money flowing from lobbyist to campaigns is nothing short of bribery and should be outlawed.
Dezakin
Jun 10 2009 at 7:41pm
Hypocrisy makes good theater.
MikeDC
Jun 10 2009 at 8:53pm
55% of 0 is still 0.
I’m pretty sure 17.5% of 0 is also 0.
Jesse
Jun 10 2009 at 10:14pm
The UAW gave an amazing $27,340 to Obama.
That’s a lot of money.
SydB
Jun 10 2009 at 11:39pm
Is this new? Or news? Or just Newt?
I think most of us know that interest groups donate money to politicians and political parties.
If these are the only dots Newt can connect, the GOP is doomed. Maybe he should look for more dots.
SydB
Jun 11 2009 at 1:34am
On average, however, there is little difference between the Yes and No camps in the dollar amount of the PAC contributions received. Lawmakers who received UAW PAC contributions and voted No, received slightly more money on average than those receiving UAW PAC money and voting Yes. On average the 18 No votes received $6,194, the 182 Yes votes received $6,106 on average.”
and
Republicans still held a commanding lead in donations from the overall energy sector in 2008, raising $33.5 million while Democrats attracted $19.8 million.
Seems to me the worlds just a lot more complicated that the couple of dots Newt is connecting. His view is a large white canvas with two giant dots. The world is more like a pointillist painting.
That the Democrats and UAW are pals is no doubt true. But let’s be honest–money’s flowing all over the place. This ain’t nothing new.
J Cortez
Jun 11 2009 at 9:27am
I think it’s a bad idea to source Newt Gingrich for anything other than hypocrisy. The man is a consummate political hack without any shame. Any point he makes is immediately offset by his and his parties’ history and behavior. The republicans do/did the same thing and are as equally worthless as the democrats.
Dan Weber
Jun 11 2009 at 11:53am
This feels a lot like Bush’s political supporters getting no-bid contracts to “rebuild” Iraq.
It will accrete just as much ire, too.
Jeremy, Alabama
Jun 11 2009 at 3:23pm
So far, the responses have been:
– Newt is a hypocrit
– Newt said it, and so what?
– Republicans protect their donors, too
Nobody commented on your theme, One-Party State. But the reality behind the news is:
– Democrat donors and loyal supporters were repaid thousands-to-one for their support
– Property rights were obliterated in favor of political allies.
This is naked political power, and the message was certainly received by Big Business: if you want a good return on your contribution dollar, come to the Democrats. And further, without political cover, your assets and property rights are at risk. Political protection is purchased with contributions and feverish participation in Obama’s “workshops”.
SydB
Jun 11 2009 at 3:46pm
“Nobody commented on your theme, One-Party State. But the reality behind the news is…”
That’s a good point, but cherry picking data from a political partisan (Gingrich) does not make for much of an argument. The GOP were dominant, now the Democrats are.
What’s changed in terms of the big picture? Not much, except Mr Kling’s side is losing now (to the degree he puts his hat in the GOP ring, which has been much more likely than his support of the Democratic side).
So I think the real response you are hearing is “yawn–got any real news?”
Jeremy, Alabama
Jun 12 2009 at 9:25am
Republican donors also benefited thousands-to-one. In many cases, they were discovered and are in jail. Connections between, say, energy companies and Republicans are ruthlessly exposed. Where these connections are not explicitly illegal, they are loudly denounced throughout the MSM.
In comparison, when this happens for Democrats, it is reported as a great victory for the country. Meanwhile, the parties that had their assets seized are described as vultures.
“Empathy” has replaced rule-of-law. Democrats define “empathy”, “empathy” is a political good that must be purchased. This is Arnold’s point – using the unfortunate Newt as the messenger.
Without such political protection, your business or indeed industry is liable to be destroyed. This is why Obama’s “health care workshop” was so heavily subscribed by CEOs desperate to save a role for their companies. Obama’s “global warming workshop” was the same demonstration for the energy sector. These were, to me, shocking exhibitions of abuse of power.
But I believe that the true leftist mind sees nothing wrong with this. Business and corporations, if not actually wicked, tend towards the wicked unless held under close political supervision. Republican politicians exercise no such control (for the public good, anyway), therefore Democrat control is not merely necessary but the acme of good stewardship.
Comments are closed.