A preliminary analysis of fundraising by NC General Assembly candidates shows that Republicans were far more successful in the 2010 cycle than in previous elections. Many of them doubled their income from 2008, outraised their opponents, and funneled the donations to colleagues in tight races. Democrats raised substantial money, too, but several of their top fundraisers from previous elections had resigned or were not seeking reelection (e.g., Tony Rand, David Hoyle and R. C. Soles). Reliable Democratic donors, like hog baron Wendell Murphy, also jumped on the Republican bandwagon with late donations designed to give them access to the winners.
1-888-OUR-VOTE|info@democracy-nc.org
Has U. S. Supreme Court’s decision, Citizens United, changed our politics forever? Have or will we return to the conditions present during the times of the “robber barrons” in America – when political donations of money ruled legislation and executive actions on the natioal stage? During that time soon after the Civil War (War Between the States), it led to great graft and corruption during a long period of Republican dominance. Careful watch should be maintianed by the media and others to see what the businesses that contributed so gererously to non-candidate-campaign groups and to Republican candidates receive in legislation for their contributions. Will the U. S. House and N. C. legislation be like the Gingrich U. S. House period when the House allowed business lobbists to even write legislation allowing them to benefit mainly themselvces?
I agree but let’s not just point the finger at the Republicans. The Democrats spent more money in 2010 then the Republicans. Don’t forget the insidious labor unions. They have been heavy contributors to the Democrats in their losing cause.
Do corporations that make political donations from corporate funds expect something specific to help their company in return? If they do not expect something specific in return, are they properly spending corporate funds? If it is a public company with many shareholders, can shareholders who disagree with the donations succeed in suits objecting to the donations if the company did not expect something in return for the donations? If they didn’t expect something in return, were they effectively giving away corporate funds? If the corporation is closely-held (owned by a few individuals) and all share holders agree to the exxpenditiures on political donations, is it alright? How do we know whether or not all share-holders agree on the corporation’s political donations? If the donations are to groups that do not report their donors are, how do shareholders ever know what was done by the corporations in which they hold stock? Must such corporatate political donations be reported in annual reports or elsewhere? Do we really want office holders who are beholden to corporation donors if the public does not know who donated to whom? How does the public and the media monitor political corruption/favors for donations if they do not know who donated to whom?