Corporations Bankroll Bush (April 15, 2004)
Created by: Administrator,Last modification on 15 Apr 2004 [05:00 UTC]
U.S. corporate executives are the primary force behind the funding of President Bush's $180 million 2004 election campaign war chest. By early April, Bush had raised so much money that he suspended all further fund-raising. He now has the largest campaign fund of any candidate in U.S. history - almost double the amount he raised for the 2000 election.
Bush ran his 2000 campaign with money still linked to his Texas origins, but now relies heavily on the national finance and investment community for his campaign funding. By March of this year, Merrill Lynch and PricewaterhouseCoopers had contributed nearly half a million dollars each to the Bush campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
UBS Americas, MBNA Corp., Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers and Credit Suisse First Boston all gave Bush more than quarter of a million dollars each.
Merrill Lynch's 2004 contribution is double the largest corporate contribution to Bush's 2000 campaign - $241,000 from MBNA. The finance/insurance/real estate sector has become by far the most deeply invested in Bush's re-election, with well over $22 million in campaign contributions and many of the sector's CEOs acting as top Bush fundraisers.
Stan O'Neal, CEO of Merrill Lynch, is one of Bush's biggest contributors and fund-raisers. Merrill Lynch and other finance industry contributors publicly support Bush's proposals for privatizing Social Security with individual investment programs. They have also benefited from his capital gains and dividends tax cuts.
Democratic candidate John Kerry has raised only $80 million, and will not be able to match the television commercial blitz that the Bush campaign has already launched.
Corporate contributions to Kerry are insignificant in comparison to Bush's take. Most of Kerry's major corporate contributors have given equal or greater amounts of money to the Bush campaign to hedge their bets.
Citigroup, Kerry's largest corporate donor with almost $80,000 in contributions, gave twice that amount to Bush.
Goldman Sachs gave $64,750 to Kerry, but $282,725 to Bush. Morgan Stanley gave $40,000 to Kerry and $177,075 to Bush. UBS Americas gave $36,550 to Kerry and almost ten times that amount -$352,850 - to Bush.
Both Bush and Kerry will receive $75 million each in public funds after the national conventions meet this summer.
Federal election laws ban companies from contributing directly to candidates and limit individual contributions to $2,000. To calculate corporate contributions, the Center for Responsive Politics includes the money contributed by the company's PAC and by individuals employed by the company. It also counts donations from the individuals' dependents.
Although a company cannot conduct fundraising events for a candidate on site during work hours or directly pressure employees to contribute to a specific candidate, many executives host fundraisers outside of the workplace and are free to invite anyone, including employees.
Companies can circulate issue-oriented communications to employees that make it clear that the company believes that a candidate's position on an issue is in the best interests of the company and, by extension, its employees.
A growing number of companies are also adopting the traditional labor union strategy of sponsoring voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives. In many cases, the presumption is that employees will support Bush along with the corporate officers and counter union support for Kerry.
The largest corporations coordinate the campaign megabucks, but Bush has plenty of support from small and midsize companies, and they are an important source of contributions. Middle-market CEOs strongly support Bush, according to TEC International. Its first quarter 2004 survey of 1,100 CEOs found that nearly three-quarters will vote for Bush in November. Kerry will garner just 16.4 percent of their votes.
Record-setting deficits, high unemployment, skittish markets and wavering consumer confidence undermine the claim that Bush is a logical choice for economic growth and solid business conditions, but corporate support is based on broader ideologies and an underlying assumption that Bush's policies will ultimately favor business. In some sectors, such as financial services and investment, specific issues are at stake.
The large and growing federal budget deficit means that taxes for both individuals and corporations will have to rise no matter who is elected in November. Bush's tax cuts have reduced federal receipts as a percent of GDP from 21 percent in 2000 to less than 16 percent this year. There is no money for the badly needed federal education, R&D, job training and infrastructure projects that could solidify the recovery.
Bush's lock on corporate support is not complete, and events between now and November could certainly shake the support he now has. The near-term legacy of the Bush presidency - inevitable increases in taxes, interest rates and the trade deficit and the mixed results of the Iraq war - may become more apparent before the election.
Bush ran his 2000 campaign with money still linked to his Texas origins, but now relies heavily on the national finance and investment community for his campaign funding. By March of this year, Merrill Lynch and PricewaterhouseCoopers had contributed nearly half a million dollars each to the Bush campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
UBS Americas, MBNA Corp., Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers and Credit Suisse First Boston all gave Bush more than quarter of a million dollars each.
Merrill Lynch's 2004 contribution is double the largest corporate contribution to Bush's 2000 campaign - $241,000 from MBNA. The finance/insurance/real estate sector has become by far the most deeply invested in Bush's re-election, with well over $22 million in campaign contributions and many of the sector's CEOs acting as top Bush fundraisers.
Stan O'Neal, CEO of Merrill Lynch, is one of Bush's biggest contributors and fund-raisers. Merrill Lynch and other finance industry contributors publicly support Bush's proposals for privatizing Social Security with individual investment programs. They have also benefited from his capital gains and dividends tax cuts.
Democratic candidate John Kerry has raised only $80 million, and will not be able to match the television commercial blitz that the Bush campaign has already launched.
Corporate contributions to Kerry are insignificant in comparison to Bush's take. Most of Kerry's major corporate contributors have given equal or greater amounts of money to the Bush campaign to hedge their bets.
Citigroup, Kerry's largest corporate donor with almost $80,000 in contributions, gave twice that amount to Bush.
Goldman Sachs gave $64,750 to Kerry, but $282,725 to Bush. Morgan Stanley gave $40,000 to Kerry and $177,075 to Bush. UBS Americas gave $36,550 to Kerry and almost ten times that amount -$352,850 - to Bush.
Both Bush and Kerry will receive $75 million each in public funds after the national conventions meet this summer.
Federal election laws ban companies from contributing directly to candidates and limit individual contributions to $2,000. To calculate corporate contributions, the Center for Responsive Politics includes the money contributed by the company's PAC and by individuals employed by the company. It also counts donations from the individuals' dependents.
Although a company cannot conduct fundraising events for a candidate on site during work hours or directly pressure employees to contribute to a specific candidate, many executives host fundraisers outside of the workplace and are free to invite anyone, including employees.
Companies can circulate issue-oriented communications to employees that make it clear that the company believes that a candidate's position on an issue is in the best interests of the company and, by extension, its employees.
A growing number of companies are also adopting the traditional labor union strategy of sponsoring voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives. In many cases, the presumption is that employees will support Bush along with the corporate officers and counter union support for Kerry.
The largest corporations coordinate the campaign megabucks, but Bush has plenty of support from small and midsize companies, and they are an important source of contributions. Middle-market CEOs strongly support Bush, according to TEC International. Its first quarter 2004 survey of 1,100 CEOs found that nearly three-quarters will vote for Bush in November. Kerry will garner just 16.4 percent of their votes.
Record-setting deficits, high unemployment, skittish markets and wavering consumer confidence undermine the claim that Bush is a logical choice for economic growth and solid business conditions, but corporate support is based on broader ideologies and an underlying assumption that Bush's policies will ultimately favor business. In some sectors, such as financial services and investment, specific issues are at stake.
The large and growing federal budget deficit means that taxes for both individuals and corporations will have to rise no matter who is elected in November. Bush's tax cuts have reduced federal receipts as a percent of GDP from 21 percent in 2000 to less than 16 percent this year. There is no money for the badly needed federal education, R&D, job training and infrastructure projects that could solidify the recovery.
Bush's lock on corporate support is not complete, and events between now and November could certainly shake the support he now has. The near-term legacy of the Bush presidency - inevitable increases in taxes, interest rates and the trade deficit and the mixed results of the Iraq war - may become more apparent before the election.
© 2004 Labor Research Association
