Thursday, September 5, 2013

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


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

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

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.
The authorization must be approved by the full Senate and House.
Among other things, the deal sets a 60-day engagement limit, and bars U.S. ground troops from combat missions. The plan essentially is the legal basis to authorize President Barack Obama topunish Syria for allegedly using chemical weapons, killing some 1,400 people as part of its ongoing civil war.
The top three defense-campaign earners who voted “yes” were Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) at $176,000; Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) at $127,350; and Sen. Timothy Kaine (D-Virginia) at $101,025.
The top three defense-campaign earners who voted “no” were Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyoming) at $86,500; Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) at $62,790; and Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut) at $59,250.

1 comment:

  1. Bill,
    In Canada politician have to disclose their financial holdings for any conflict of interests and only individuals are allowed to give campaign donations, not companies. Even individuals that use their companies cheques to give their individual donations are in trouble, their donations must be made from their private individual bank accounts. Yes these individuals of large companies do give big personal donations to hopefully benefit their companies, but they cannot do so in a way that gives their companies legitimate tax deductions.

    This article shows that this is not so in the US. Why is this not addressed in the US political system?

    I thought that the US constitution prevents elected officials from serving if they are receiving special interest money. To me this is a form of insider trading and treasonous "trading with the enemy".

    Is there no legal recourse?
    Maybe the RICO laws could help.
    Just a suggestion from a Canadian eternal essence.

    ReplyDelete

This blog is supported by ads and donations. If you enjoy this blog please consider supporting it with a contribution via PayPal.