Senators Authorizing Syria Strike Got More Defense Cash Than Lawmakers Voting No

[n2doc]

BY DAVID KRAVETS
09.05.136:30 AM



Senators voting Wednesday to authorize a Syria strike received, on average, 83 percent more campaign financing from defense contractors than lawmakers voting against war.

Overall, political action committees and employees from defense and intelligence firms such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, United Technologies, Honeywell International, and others ponied up $1,006,887 to the 17 members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who voted yes or no on the authorization Wednesday, according to an analysis by Maplight, the Berkeley-based nonprofit that performed the inquiry at WIRED’s request.

Committee members who voted to authorize what the resolution called a “limited” strike averaged $72,850 in defense campaign financing from the pot. Committee members who voted against the resolution averaged $39,770, according to the data.

The analysis of contributions from employees and PACs of defense industry interests ranges from 2007 through 2012 — based on data tracked by OpenSecrets.org.

more
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/09/syria-war-authorization-money/


As predicted. There is a term for someone who takes money for services I can't use here, but is there a term for the person who actually provides the money in the first place but gets screwed instead? Taxpayer?

[janlyn]

1. This is not a big surprise to me.

I knew it when we went to war with Iraq. And I know it now. I think the hardest part for people to accept is that the Democratic led administration is leading the charge for war.

I have long suspected that the American people have been distracted by the fight along party lines, while our politicians do as they please.
This government stopped being by the people and for the people along time ago.

Its all about profit for corporations. Not just for those who supply the tools of war but, also the oil and natural gas companies.

[sabrina 1]

2. 'the American people have been distracted by the fight along party liines'. Exactly, and now they

are finally realizing that. For the first time, we have learned why throughout the Bush era we were often so disappointed by Democrats voting in support of his policies, puzzled, trying to find excuses etc.

Now we know. Now maybe we can do something to reverse the harm this manufactured, and I believe it is, 'partisanship' has caused.

I notice the lack of interest now in articles that are designed to get the 'Left' upset, 'what this Republican said, or what Rush said to day about Liberals'. It worked, but seems to have lost its affect now. And that is a good sign.

We were so naive and so easily manipulated. That 'team' thing was a superb tactic, I have to admit and feel embarrassed that I fell for it, especially after SEEING how many members of OUR team, but rarely THEIRS, voted for THEIR policies.

Not any more.

[Flying Squirrel]

3. 6 of the ten voting for war got below the average of $72,850

Since I despise intellectual dishonesty, I must respond to this even though I generally agree that these contributions have no place in a true democracy.

4 of the ten voting for war got significantly below that average (Boxer, Coons, Flake and Shaheen).

Meanwhile 3 of the 7 who voted against the war got between $59,000 and $86,500 each.

If it weren't for John McCain's obscenely high $176,300, this graph would probably not even have been created.

Intellectual dishonesty makes us look bad - we can get our points across just fine without dipping to that level.