HuffPo: "The 15 Biggest Congressional Recipients Of Wall Street Campaign Cash"

[Amerigo Vespucci]

The 15 Biggest Congressional Recipients Of Wall Street Campaign Cash



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/17/the-15-biggest-congressio_n_360514.html

Reforming Wall Street is a hot topic on Capitol Hill these days. Congress is currently weighing two financial reform bills that would, to varying degrees, reshape the way the financial system is regulated.

Still, Wall Street's influence in Washington appears to be as strong as ever. After all, it was just last spring that Senator Dick Durbin, frustrated by pushback on bankruptcy reform, denounced the financial sector's influence on the Senate: the banks, he said, "they frankly own the place." The Center for Responsive Politics, a research group that tracks money in politics, reports that financial industries -- the finance, insurance and real estate sectors, specifically -- have been one of the biggest benefactors to Congress over the past two decades:

"The finance, insurance and real estate sector has given $2.3 billion to candidates, leadership PACs and party committees since 1989, which eclipses every other sector. Nineteen percent of total contributions from the employees and political action committees across all sectors came from the financial sector."

And while campaign contributions don't equate to wrongdoing, it's worth noting that, while lawmakers ponder reforming the financial sector, the industry's campaign contributions have remained strong:

"Even with a number of large financial institutions folding or merging since last fall, the sector has still given more to federal candidates and party committees than any other sector this year at $78.2 million. Current lawmakers have brought in $661.6 million from the sector through their candidate committees and leadership PACs, with Democrats collecting 53 percent of that."

We took a look at the Center for Responsive Politics's database, OpenSecrets.org, to see which members of Congress have so far received Wall Street money for the 2010 election cycle. The answers may surprise you. Check out our slideshow of the top 15 recipients and choose which politician may be taking too much money from Wall Street.

[Raster]

1. Is there a link available?

[Amerigo Vespucci]

2. In my usual sense of posting fervor, I seem to have omitted it

It's there now.

:patriot:

[Raster]

3. No worries! Thanks for adding the link and thanks for posting!

:yourock:

[earth mom]

4. Let's be honest-this is old fashioned graft and those bastards are criminals.

:grr:

[branders seine]

5. I guess both parties are NOT the same.

The ones with "D" after their names seem to be more completely owned by Wall Street than the ones with the "R."

:puke:

[csziggy]

7. Donations go more to the party in power

If you go back to 2004, I'd bet more went to Rs than to Ds.

[tabasco]

10. You are quite correct.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_17/b4031050.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_businessweek+exclusives

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0619-05.htm

[branders seine]

11. donations go to both parties,

no matter which is in power.

[csziggy]

12. Yes but power pulls stronger to the people who want to influence

The direction that the power moves.

[branders seine]

15. and it works.

it works well here in our system driven almost entirely by bribes.

[csziggy]

16. Yeah - we never hear about donations being refused

Until after some impropriety has been made public and donations are publicly announced as being returned.

We need campaign financing reform, that is for sure, but as long as the politicians are making so much being bought off it will not happen.

[AllentownJake]

6. Most of them are democrats

I think there are only 4 GOPers on the list

[Tashca]

8. Another positive for Wall Street

I think this is proof positive that Wall Street is all about being an equal opportunity employer!!

They spend quite abit of money on their people!!

[mcablue]

9. I like Schumer

I don't think it can be said that he's been corrupted by the money he receives from Wall Street. He is always on the side of the consumer.

[blues90]

13. Are we even certain these people are even alive?

Most of them look like they are a mechanical movement behind a horrifying rubber mask,all there for the sole purpose of keeping a seat for life, enjoying themselves with the best of the best this country has to offer up.

The people , oh well they can just starve or become fodder or work until they drop.

[chill_wind]

14. Goldman Sachs has favored Dems for years. Breakin up is hard to do.

Cycle Total Dem Republicans % to Dems % to Repubs

2008 $5,842,471 $4,392,720 $1,439,411 75% 25%
2006 $3,502,866 $2,170,911 $1,294,005 62% 37%
2004 $6,428,438 $3,963,753 $2,446,185 62% 38%
2002 $3,513,035 $2,292,040 $1,219,995 65% 35%
2000 $4,432,977 $2,764,185 $1,662,292 62% 38%
1998 $1,938,166 $1,225,252 $683,914 63% 35%
1996 $1,816,563 $997,747 $816,316 55% 45%
1994 $1,026,235 $562,760 $462,675 55% 45%
1992 $1,660,310 $908,295 $751,515 55% 45%
1990 $717,621 $473,716 $243,905 66% 34%

TOTAL $30,878,682 $19,751,379 $11,020,213 64% 36%

LOTS more opensecrets compiled data on the Wall Street Dems' coffers, from months and months ago.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=114x61119