by skeptic06, Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 09:01:10 AM EDT
A tantalizing graf from the Note today - except for plutocrats with a WSJ subscription:
The Wall Street Journal's Brody Mullins detects a shift in giving among the Republican-leaning insurance, pharmaceutical and tobacco industries towards Democrats, signaling that "businesses believe Democrats will have more sway in Washington after the 2006 midterm elections or the 2008 presidential contest."
Now, not having read the whole thing
and all, I'm not commenting on that in particular. Unless the Note is being ironic (as if!), I'd infer from detects a shift
that the WSJ
piece is pretty much Monday morning filler.
But the evidence of history seems to be that, just like the Supreme Court, campaign contributions follow the election returns.
by The Southern Dem, Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 01:47:34 AM EST
Dr. Dean is correct. Jack Abramoff and his wife, Pamela, never gave one penny to Democrats. The facts get a little more muddled when looking at the Indian Tribe clients. There's a tremendous amount of confusion over this, so I'm hoping to help with that by highlighting one tribe.
Before hiring Jack Abramoff the Saginaw Chippewah Indian Tribe preferred to give its money to Democrats. After hiring Abramoff it was a completely different story. Those who are following the scandals surrounding the Republican lobbyist are familiar with the assertion that Abramoff directed his Indian clients to send campaign contributions to Democrats. Before I take this discussion any further I will repeat what I have said before, it was not illegal to make or receive these contributions. Democrats have countered with the argument saying Abramoff told his Indian clients to reduce their current level of giving to Democrats. It really appears that the truth lies somewhere in between.