Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Top 20 All-Time campaign Donors, 1989-2012 (Federal)

Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 29, 2011, 4:36 p.m. EST by bronxj (150)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Top 20 All-Time Donors, 1989-2012


1 ActBlue $55,745,059

2 AT&T Inc $47,571,779

3 American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees $46,167,658

4 National Assn of Realtors $40,718,176

  1. Service Employees International Union $37,634,367

  2. National Education Assn $37,051,378

7 Goldman Sachs $35,790,579

8 American Assn for Justice $34,715,804

9 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $34,292,471

10 Laborers Union $31,876,95011

  1. American Federation of Teachers $31,681,366

12 Teamsters Union $31,285,842

13 Carpenters & Joiners Union $30,769,258

14 Communications Workers of America $30,192,447

15 Citigroup Inc $28,842,146

16 American Medical Assn $27,880,935

17 United Auto Workers $27,539,652

18 United Food & Commercial Workers Union $27,344,608

19 National Auto Dealers Assn $26,966,358

20 Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union $26,879,727



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by bronxj (150) 12 years ago

U.S. Companies Dodge $60 Billion in Taxes With Global Odyssey (Bloomberg news) By Jesse Drucker - May 13, 2010 3:00 PM ET excerpt:T Tyler Hurst swiped his debit card at a Walgreens pharmacy in central Phoenix and kicked off an international odyssey of corporate tax avoidance. Hurst went home with an amber bottle of Lexapro, the world’s third-best selling antidepressant. The profits from his $99 purchase began a 9,400-mile journey that would lead across the Atlantic Ocean and more than halfway back again, to a grassy industrial park in Dublin, a glass skyscraper in Amsterdam and a law office in Bermuda surrounded by palm trees. While Forest Laboratories Inc., the medicine’s maker, sells Lexapro only in the U.S., the voyage ensures most of its profits aren’t taxed there -- and they face little tax anywhere else. Forest cut its U.S. tax bill by more than a third last year with a technique known as transfer pricing, a method that carves an estimated $60 billion a year from the U.S. Treasury as it combines tax planning and alchemy. (See an interactive graphic on Forest’s tax strategy here.)

link to complete article:


[-] 1 points by LSN45 (535) 12 years ago

This is why we need to get the money out - we need real, loop-hole free CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM!!! It needs to be THE main goal of these protests. I personally like the idea of publicly funded elections, but whatever the method, until we get rid of the current system of legalized bribery and paid lobbyists, we will never get our democracy back.

[-] 1 points by bronxj (150) 12 years ago

It's not just multinational corporations as many here seem to think , but a variety of special interest groups. congress enacts legislation for the specific benefit of these special interest groups without regard as to the effect on the rest of us .

[-] 1 points by LSN45 (535) 12 years ago

You are correct!! Unfortunately the politicians do their favors for whoever helps them get into and retain their elected position. The politicians say that they are not influenced by the money, yet the corporations obviously believe they are getting something of value in return, otherwise they would not be handing out so much money.

[-] 0 points by pinker (586) 12 years ago

Well, would you give your money to a polititian that did not have the same views as you? For example, I'm pro-choice and would only give my money to someone who was PC because I want them to win. is that bribery?

[-] 1 points by LSN45 (535) 12 years ago

Nope, not a bribe - because it does not even register. Don't get me wrong - the $50 or $100 the average American would give to a campaign becomes meaningless when compared to the millions the corporations give. That's the whole point - they have turned our election system into a contest of who can spend the most money, and we are being marketed candidates like they are a new type of detergent. With the money out it would be one person - one vote. National security note: many of the corporations giving money are large multinational corporations with boards full of foreigners. Right now corporations in China have more sway on our politics than the American citizen does.

[-] 1 points by pinker (586) 12 years ago

but there are more unions and associations on that list. might that not be questionable. check the auto workers ammt. and they support ows. it's odd.

[-] 2 points by LSN45 (535) 12 years ago

I agree with you. All of it needs to end - it is skewing the political system in favor of the privileged at the expense of the everyday citizen. This goes for corporations, associations, AND unions. The unions are trying to co-opt the movement just like what the corporations did with the tea party movement. As soon as the monied interest saw that there was some real discontent behind the tea party they all started throwing their hats into the ring to try to gain from it politically.

[-] 1 points by bronxj (150) 12 years ago

New York Times Article Panel Hears Complaints on Pensions at Delphi By MARY WILLIAMS WALSH Published: June 22, 201

A Congressional panel heard complaints Wednesday that the Obama administration had created pension winners and pension losers when it led the bankruptcy overhauls of the auto companies in 2009, despite federal rules meant to weave a uniform safety net for retirees. “It is frightening to even think about allowing this precedent to stand,” said Bruce Gump, a retiree of Delphi who lost part of his benefit when the federal government took over Delphi’s pension plan in bankruptcy — even though other Delphi retirees got special payments to shield them from such losses. The difference between Mr. Gump and his luckier neighbors was their union status. Retirees who belonged to the United Automobile Workers and two other unions while at Delphi got their full benefits after the bankruptcy, because of an unusual side agreement with General Motors, which was honored even as G.M. also went into Chapter 11 that year. Retirees like Mr. Gump who were not union members, or who belonged to smaller unions, did not get such help. Mr. Gump and others who testified argued that this two-tiered outcome had undermined the rule of law in bankruptcy, where retirees with underfunded pensions were normally considered unsecured creditors, whether they belonged to unions or not.

Rest of article at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/23/business/23pension.html

[-] 1 points by pinker (586) 12 years ago

This is a very interesting bit of info, both the initial post and this. thanks.

[-] 0 points by pinker (586) 12 years ago

whoa. that's a lot of unions.