The Richest 1 Percent

washtimes.com ^ | December 18, 2002 | editorial

[cdefreese]

So much for Republicans being the party of the wealthy. According to a new study by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, that moniker more appropriately belongs to the Democrats.

"Republicans raised more than Democrats from individuals who contributed small and medium amounts of money during the 2002 election cycle," the report notes, "but Democrats far outpaced Republicans among deep-pocketed givers." Among donors who gave more than $200 but less than $1,000, Republicans enjoyed a substantial $68 million to $44 million edge over Democrats. The margin was closer among those individuals who gave $1,000 or more: The GOP took in $317 million, compared to the Democrats' $307 million.

[cdefreese]

I would also like to see the spread of corporate/union/non-profit dontations as well.

[Coop]

More evidence to reject yet another Dem fabrication.

[lodwick]

Common sense bttt. Thanks.

[Phantom Lord]

self bump

[nwrep]

Go to www.opensecrets.org

Has a listing of donations for each cadidate, including corporate/labor/single-issue group breakdown.

Repubs: Overwhelingly from coprporations/small businesses
Rats: Mostly from labor, activists and trial lawyers

[Blood of Tyrants]

Yep. Forced dues to support the party of the Rat really sticks in my craw.

[The_Victor]

Bump for the truth in direct contradiction to the mainstream media spin.

[bimbo]

According to a new study by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, that moniker more appropriately belongs to the Democrats.

This should surprise no one ... Democrats, once in power, begin courting and collecting tribute from those they serve - the wealthy.

[austrianecon]

One only needs to look to Congress I believe. The Dems have more millionaire congressmen than the GOP.

[pollwatcher]

Does Paulie Walnuts go around collection tribute money for the Dems too?

[MadIvan]

This pattern is repeated across the globe - often those who are socialism's strongest backers are those who can afford it, and escape its consequences.

There is nothing more loathsome and contemptible than a rich person who tries to change the rules so that no one else can become wealthy. Meanwhile, they can protect their wealth through offshore investments or other forms of tax avoidance. Remember that when you see Babs Streisand sipping champagne with the likes of Corzine and Clinton - they don't want anyone else to join their club, and their club is going to set the rules of the rest of society.

Regards, Ivan

[Mo1]

about time the figured this out

[Carry_Okie]

There is nothing more loathsome and contemptible than a rich person who tries to change the rules so that no one else can become wealthy.

Well said. They like cheap servants too.

[eureka!]

"More evidence to reject yet another Dem fabrication."

Good luck getting the lamestream presstitutes to acknowledge and report the same. *sigh*

[PeaceBeWithYou]

BUMP

[Richard Axtell]

Interesting analysis, eh Tuco. Seems unfair though, that the Democrats get all that 1% money. right?

[jjm2111]

That's why I've always believed the Dems are NOT the party of the people. Only very rich liberals, union types, government workers, and dumb people vote Democrat.

[MrB]

You should add "net tax consumers" to your list.

[PeaceBeWithYou]

Looks like that richest 1% the Dims are always carping about supported them 13 to 1 last election.

I'll let you break the news to Fred.;-)

[sweetliberty]

LOL! I was hearing about that on Rush today.

Poor Fred. Must be hard being him. He never learns.