Are Those Rich Fat Cats Who Finance Elections Conservative?

From Dad29, and the The Center for Responsive Politics, the real scoop.

In the following chart, the little donkeys and elephants indicate the partisan slant of the contributions of the group. The little fence icon means the group was nearly evenly split between the parties.

These are the top donors, with the figures aggregated for 1989-2010.

(Clicking on the graphic will bring up a larger easy-to-read copy.)

You can follow the Open Secrets link to see the entire list.

Feminist Discussion of Women in Politics Tonight

It has not been well publicized, but (although we are likely to disagree with a lot that is said) this looks to be an interesting discussion:

Women and Politics Panel!

Where: AMU 157

When: Wednesday, March 26, 7:00-8:00 p.m.

Come hear JoAnne Anton, Janet Boles, and Lauren Demshar discuss women in politics from a variety of perspectives and join in the talk-back session!

Note that Lauren Demshar has been substituted for Jackie Boynton, who had to cancel.

Expect the program to start with a Powerpoint discussion of the supposed “double-standard that women in power face.” Then Boles and Anton will speak very briefly (five to eight minutes), followed by discussion. The entire program is intended to go on for an hour or so.

We are tied up tonight, or we would be inclined to go and throw a stink bomb into the proceedings by asking a critical question or two, as we did in an earlier discussion of rape.

Maybe somebody else will do that, but regardless, it’s doubtless going to be interesting for anybody interested in Wisconsin politics.

[Correction]

JoAnne Anton, and not Jackie Boynton, had to cancel. We regret the error.

Clinton and Obama Trying to Buy Superdelegate Votes?

Via Republicratocracy, a story broken by Capital Eye, an operation run by the left-leaning Center for Responsive Politics.

February 14, 2008 At this summer’s Democratic National Convention, nearly 800 members of Congress, state governors and Democratic Party leaders could be the tiebreakers in the intense contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. If neither candidate can earn the support of at least 2,025 delegates in the primary voting process, the decision of who will represent the Democrats in November’s presidential election will fall not to the will of the people but to these “superdelegates” — the candidates’ friends, colleagues and even financial beneficiaries. Both contenders will be calling in favors.

And while it would be unseemly for the candidates to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged to represent the will of those voters, elected officials who are superdelegates have received at least $890,000 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Obama, who narrowly leads in the count of pledged, “non-super” delegates, has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates from his political action committee, Hope Fund, or campaign committee since 2005. Of the 81 elected officials who had announced as of Feb. 12 that their superdelegate votes would go to the Illinois senator, 34, or 40 percent of this group, have received campaign contributions from him in the 2006 or 2008 election cycles, totaling $228,000. In addition, Obama has been endorsed by 52 superdelegates who haven’t held elected office recently and, therefore, didn’t receive campaign contributions from him.

Clinton does not appear to have been as openhanded. Her PAC, HILLPAC, and campaign committee appear to have distributed $195,500 to superdelegates. Only 12 percent of her elected superdelegates, or 13 of 109 who have said they will back her, have received campaign contributions, totaling about $95,000 since 2005. An additional 128 unelected superdelegates support Clinton, according to a blog tracking superdelegates and their endorsements, 2008 Democratic Convention Watch.

This isn’t quite the same thing -- at least in pure legal terms -- as bribery. It has long been the case that politicians have had PACs, known as “leadership PACs,” whose role is to make contributions to the election organizations of other politicians.

Still . . . where these “other politicians” are people who might vote to give you the Democratic nomination, the conflict of interest is pretty blatant.

Republicratocracy points out one huge irony here.

Let me get this straight. Barack Obama won’t take campaign cash from lobbyists. He has said he wouldn’t hire lobbyists (but he has).

So what’s he doing acting like the lobbyists he vilifies? Why is he spending over three times as much on superdelegate handouts as Clinton, whom he criticizes for her lobbyist ties?

The Obama cult, which has benefitted from uncritical media coverage, is in fact far from the juggernaut that some have supposed. As the general election draws near, people will begin to notice that Obama looks very much like an ordinary politician, and an extremely liberal one at that.

You’re All About Hillary

Political Giving Among Celebrities

From we live our lives among giants, a fascinating post linking to a list of political contributions of celebrities.

There are no big surprises there. The Hollywood crowd is firmly in the Democratic camp.

Country singers, however, are heavily Republican.

Game show hosts are heavily Republican! Check out, for example, Bob Barker, Wink Martindale, Pat Sajak and Alex Trebek.

If he had to come up with a completely ad hoc out-of-left-field explanation for this, it might be that they don’t like a large portion of the money they give out to their contestants confiscated by the government.

People who think the movie “It’s a Wonderful Life” represents the best of American values will be gratified to learn that both the star (Jimmy Stewart) and the director (Frank Capra) gave overwhelmingly to Republicans.