Was it a matter of strong principle that the people at large should not suffer the torments of an out of control financial system? Was it that they were housed in safer districts with fewer challengers? Perhaps. But what we do know for sure, the difference was
money.
Members of the House of Representatives who voted Friday afternoon in favor of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 had received 41 percent more money from the financial sector over their congressional careers than those who opposed the legislation, the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics has found.
In the Senate on Wednesday, where a "sweetened" version passed easily, senators who supported the bailout received an average of $3,986,723 from the finance sector since 1989 -- 139 percent more than their opponents, who had received $1,671,029, on average.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/10/in-houses-final-bailout-vote-m.html(average contribution to house members since 1989)
And could this be why the Democrats led the charge to take the finacial industry into it's bosom?
In this election alone, when the sector's money to Congress has favored Democrats, members of the House and Senate have received more than $180 million from PACs and individuals associated with finance, insurance and real estate — the industries with the most at stake in the ongoing legislative debate.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/10/industries-seeking-rescue-gave.htmlBut, maybe I'm just being paranoid.