Here is a press release from Center for Responsive Politics showing the link in donations between Bush and Kerry. Unfortunately, the spin from the press release is that "Bush is raising funds from Kerry's top donors." But couldn't it be said that Kerry is raising funds from Bush's top donors? Or - even more accurately - Bush and Kerry funded by same corporate interests? Anyhow, here is the press release from Common Dreams:
Bush Raising Funds from Kerry's Top Donors
WASHINGTON - March 4 - President Bush begins the head-to-head battle for the White House against Sen. John Kerry with a $100 million advantage in fund raising. For that, Bush can thank his incumbent status, his network of fund-raising Pioneers and Rangers -- and several of the top contributors to the Kerry campaign.
Nearly half of Kerry's biggest financial supporters contributed more money to Bush than to Kerry himself through Jan. 30 of this year, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics' study of campaign finance reports filed this month with the Federal Election Commission.
The finding is one of many examples of Bush's fund-raising dominance, and it illustrates how much ground Kerry must make up to approach financial parity with the president. Bush raised a total of $145 million for his re-election effort in the first 13 months of the election cycle, dwarfing Kerry's $33 million.
Kerry's third-largest contributor, Citigroup, gave more than $79,000 in individual and PAC contributions to the presumptive Democratic nominee through January. Louis Susman, Citigroup's vice-chairman, is one of Kerry's biggest fund-raisers. But the financial services giant gave more than $187,000 to the Bush campaign during the same period, good enough for 12th on the president's list of top contributors.
Goldman Sachs contributed nearly $65,000 to Kerry through January, earning it the No. 6 ranking among Kerry's top givers. But the company's employees and PAC sent Bush nearly $283,000 -- more than four times the amount it gave to Kerry. Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson and managing director George Walker are Bush Pioneers who have raised at least $100,000 for the campaign.
Even MassMutual, which ranks among the biggest donors to Kerry over the past 15 years, has contributed more money to Bush than to its home-state senator in the current election cycle. The insurance conglomerate gave $69,000 to Bush through January, compared with slightly more than $50,000 to Kerry. MassMutual CEO Robert O'Connell was a Bush Pioneer in 2000.
In all, nine of Kerry's top 20 donors favor Bush with their contributions. Kerry's top contributor, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, has given nearly $106,000 to his campaign. But the nation's largest law firm has contributed an additional $65,000 to the Bush campaign.
Kerry's No. 2 contributor, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, has been far more lopsided in its giving. The trial law firm has contributed nearly $92,000 to Kerry and just $4,000 to Bush. The firm's chairman, Mike Ciresi, is one of Kerry's top fund-raisers.
Two of Kerry's top donors -- Chicago-based Clifford Law Offices and Hill, Holliday, the Boston-based ad firm -- have given no money to Bush. Bob Clifford of the Clifford Law Offices and Hill, Holliday Chairman Jack Connors are top fund-raisers for Kerry.
Half of Kerry's top contributors through January are law firms. Two-thirds of Bush's top contributors represent the financial sector. Bush's No. 1 financial supporter, with nearly $458,000 in individual and PAC contributions, is Merrill Lynch, the financial services firm that has topped the list of the president's contributors since he began fund raising last spring. Second among Bush's top donors is PricewaterhouseCoopers with nearly $430,000 in contributions.
This release, along with relevant links and a chart showing Bush fund raising among Kerry's top contributors, is available at: http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/2004/PresFRJan.asp
Detailed profiles of the presidential candidates, complete with the latest fund-raising figures, are available at: http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/index.asp
###
Nader updates:
Ralph Nader has been in the race for the presidency for about three weeks and already has gained two points in national polls. Before his announcement on Meet the Press on Feb. 22, FoxNews had Nader polling at 4 percent. President Bush had 43 percent in the poll and John Kerry - not yet the Democratic nominee at the time - had 42 percent.
Yesterday, however, the Associated Press reported that Nader was up to 6 percent in polls, with Bush getting 46 percent and Kerry at 45 percent: ["Poll Finds Bush, Kerry Tied in Race"].
Now, as I have said before, these national polls are meaningless in the scheme of things. The presidency will be decided on who wins the most Electoral Votes in each individual state. But the point of revealing these numbers is to show that even with all the criticism, personal attacks, and fears by the Democrats, Nader gained support. He hasn't even really started to campaign - instead, he's been hunkered down in Texas trying to get on the ballot - which makes one wonder how he gained this support. The A.P. chart, posted on Common Dreams, shows Kerry gaining and Bush sinking since January 2004. Here is an interesting part of the article at the end:
Republican Virgil Ahlberg of Apison, Tenn., said he is seriously considering a vote for Nader. "Bush has come across as a little more aggressive and warlike than I like," he said. "I like Ralph Nader being in the race. I like his practicality and taking people to task for things they promise to do, things that aren't being addressed."
Hmm, an actual Republican thinking about voting for Nader. But that can't be true! That's a conspiracy! Only liberal Democrats vote for Nader, yuck, yuck, yuck, blah, blah, blah ...
Then, there is Katrina vanden Heuvel, the editor at The Nation magazine, who just can't give up her obsession about Nader running for president. Vanden Heuvel posted a response to Nader's response to her letter asking him not to run: ["Let's End the Two-Party Duopoly"]. Normally, I wouldn't give this pissing match such play - even if I am with Nader on this argument. But it is important to realize just what is going on over at The Nation.
In the first letter, vanden Heuvel rattled off a list of policy positions by Bush that were so offensive to her that he had to be removed and she believed Nader shouldn't stand in the way of this. At the time she wrote the letter, Howard Dean was still in the race. But by the time the letter was published, Kerry was well on his way to the Democratic nomination. Of course, in her complete ignorance, vanden Heuvel sloughed off the fact that Kerry had the same - or similar - political positions as Bush!!
[Sidebar: I wrote a letter to The Nation noting the policy similarities between Bush and Kerry which went unpublished. This is the third letter I have written to The Nation attempting to either show that Nader didn't cost Al Gore the election in 2000 or that Democrats continue to be very similar to the Republicans on a slew of important issues beyond social issues. It is the third time by letters have been ignored. The complete analysis of that letter can be read here: "Let Ralph decide".]
Nader, then sent a counter-letter, which chastised The Nation for trying to silence him. The editor's note in the letter pooh-poohed his points and again begged him not to run.
However, back to vanden Heuvel's latest diatribe. In it, she lists a bunch of policy positions which could liberalize small-d democracy in America. She points to proportional representation, instant run-off voting, fusion, public financing of elections, Election Day as a holiday, same-day voter registration, etc., all good ideas. However, while she criticizes Nader for not talking about these ideas, she doesn't say one word about Kerry not supporting these ideas. She does commend Dean and Kucinich for talking about some of these ideas and does note that Nader has the policy positions on his Web site.
Note to vanden Heuvel: Once John Kerry starts supporting these ideas in the public arena instead of speedily running from his 19-year voting record, we'll take your holier than thou pontification with a grain of salt.
Nader's campaign treasurer Carl Mayer chimes in with a column on Common Dreams: ["We Need A Progressive Voice in the General Election"]. But it isn't just about progressives but also populists who might be moderate or conservative but would cast a vote for Nader in protest - like they did in 2000 in droves. I specifically like this point in his piece:
... progressives are missing the enormous energy - particularly generated by young people and political newcomers - that was poured into the Democratic primaries. The corporate-dominated Democratic party (predictably) did everything possible to snuff out the Dean led insurgency. The same corporate-dominated Party is now asking all progressives to come hat in hand, on their knees, to support the corporate-financed Kerry who simply regurgitated Dean’s message during the primaries but has already signaled his intention to run a middle-of-the-road race.
It is sad and disappointing to read that Kerry is having money woes ["Kerry Team Looks to Raise Millions Fast"] because it again points out that maybe the wrong candidate is being nominated. Plus, it isn't like Kerry can borrow another $6 million from his over-assessed mansion on Beacon Hill.
Around the Web, I have been reading a lot of 'I'll vote for Kerry but I am not giving him a dime ...' While this is good short-term - yeah, the Democrat base will probably be united around the blase nominee - it is bad long-term because Kerry might not have the funds to counter Bush's $150 million ad juggernaut. As well, Kerry opted out of the public financing system. So, he can't even rely on the $60 million he could have received in matching funds! This is looking like a serious tactical mistake on Kerry's part. On the flip side, while Teresa "Lovey" Heinz can't spend her hundreds of millions on his behalf, she can create a 527 advocacy committee and do positive Kerry ads in swing states to supplement the Kerry effort.
Others who have chimed in with similar points about the Nader candidacy in the last week include San Francisco Chronicle columnist Ira Eisenberg: ["To keep Kerry on track, run Ralph, run"] and another by Seattle Post-Intelligencer Guest Columnist George Lewandowski: ["Nader can't 'harm' democracy"] and a Globe & Mail writer covering a Kerry event in San Francisco last week: ["Will your vote be a statement, or a strategy?"]. Another Green makes the case for IRV: ["It’s the Electoral System, Stupid!"] and the editor of Harper's laments the Nader candidacy: ["Confessions of a Naderite"], while the Village Voice's James Ridgeway has a Nader interview: ["The Nader Interview"]. Lastly, some polite comments from a fellow at the Cato Institute: ["Nader, One Last Time"].
Kucinich soldiers on:
Shockingly - or not so - Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich continues to be ignored by the media even though he, and the Rev. Al Sharpton, are the only candidates left standing.
To most, Sharpton has never been taken seriously despite his amusing participation in the debates, making most of them watchable. However, Kucinich still believes he is going to be the nominee and soldiers on. A google.com news search of recent articles on Kucinich yielded few. Here is one from CNN talking about the Florida primary - during spring break: ["Spring break during Florida primary"] and this from the gulf side: ["With odds slim, Kucinich focuses on his message"]. Party on Wayne, party on Garth. There is also this, from the Cleveland Morning Journal: ["Kucinich ought quit while he's still ahead"].
