{"id":516640,"date":"2010-04-05T07:49:59","date_gmt":"2010-04-05T11:49:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thehollywoodliberal.com\/2010\/04\/05\/campaign-donors-prefer-democrats\/"},"modified":"2010-04-05T07:49:59","modified_gmt":"2010-04-05T11:49:59","slug":"campaign-donors-prefer-democrats","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/516640","title":{"rendered":"Campaign Donors Prefer Democrats"},"content":{"rendered":"

Campaign Donors Prefer Democrats <\/a>
It costs about $1.36 million to win a seat in the House of Representatives and about twice that in the Senate. Democrats are finding that when it comes to raising that kind of cash, it\u2019s good to be in the majority. Republicans are having a harder time selling their agenda to donors, plus they\u2019ve got something of a Tea Party insurgency to deal with. For the Democrats, it also helps to be able to deliver for corporate America. Guess which party has gotten more money from pharmaceutical companies? Hint: The one that just passed a comprehensive health care bill that largely ignores spiraling drug costs. The Democrats would do well not to boast. Republicans enjoyed similar fundraising advantages when the Democrats retook the House in 2006.  \u2014PZS Washington Post: Democrats in both chambers are enjoying the traditional advantages of majority-party status\u2014and then some. They lead in donations by political action committees, by committees affiliated with the national political parties or with House and Senate leaders, and in individual contributions to incumbent lawmakers. In some instances, their lead exceeds what the Republicans had when that party controlled both chambers in the 2005-06 midterm election cycle. To no surprise, analysts differ by party on the causes and significance of the disparity. Some Republicans say a donation surge may still come, particularly as the party courts new, small donors outside Washington. They also complain that donations to party stalwarts have been affected by internal squabbles with rebellious \u201ctea partiers,\u201d which they hope will end soon. Read more<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/div>\n

It costs about $1.36 million to win a seat in the House of Representatives and about twice that in the Senate. Democrats are finding that when it comes to raising that kind of cash, it\u2019s good<\/a> to be in the majority.<\/p>\n

Republicans are having a harder time selling their agenda to donors, plus they\u2019ve got something of a Tea Party insurgency to deal with.<\/p>\n

For the Democrats, it also helps to be able to deliver for corporate America. Guess which party has gotten more money from pharmaceutical companies? Hint: The one that just passed a comprehensive health care bill that largely ignores spiraling drug costs.<\/p>\n

The Democrats would do well not to boast. Republicans enjoyed similar fundraising advantages when the Democrats retook the House in 2006.? —PZS<\/i><\/p>\n

\n

Washington Post:<\/b><\/p>\n

Democrats in both chambers are enjoying the traditional advantages of majority-party status—and then some. They lead in donations by political action committees, by committees affiliated with the national political parties or with House and Senate leaders, and in individual contributions to incumbent lawmakers. In some instances, their lead exceeds what the Republicans had when that party controlled both chambers in the 2005-06 midterm election cycle.<\/p>\n

To no surprise, analysts differ by party on the causes and significance of the disparity. Some Republicans say a donation surge may still come, particularly as the party courts new, small donors outside Washington. They also complain that donations to party stalwarts have been affected by internal squabbles with rebellious “tea partiers,” which they hope will end soon.<\/p>\n

Read more<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Related Entries<\/h3>\n