Where Does The Money Go?

Image credit: The Oxford [Mississippi] Heritage Society (see Note 1)


Quite a few folks who celebrate Christmas are no doubt asking themselves this question about now - Where does the money go? If you're Mississippi attorney Dickie Scruggs, you'll be glad to know someone's been keeping track.

Over at her blog Folo, Lotus has been doing a great job of keeping up with the tale of Scrugg's legal woes. I commend you to her for those details. But what I've found fascinating this morning is something she just threw in at the end of a story.

One of the things we've noticed over the years about campaign financing is that many big givers give to both parties. Scruggs and his co-defendants appear to have a pattern of giving that I find particularly odd:

Even though the North Dakota Republicans are taking aim, Scruggs hasn’t donated just to Democratic causes. He’s on record giving $2,000 to the Mississippi Republican Party in 2002; $2,000 to Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Arlen Specter in 2004; $2,300 to the Republican Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign in 2007; $5,000 to Mississippi Sen. Thad Cochran’s Senate Victory Fund PAC in 2003; and $2,000 to Florida Republican Sen. Connie Mack in 2004. Part of his joint fundraising contributions – $4,200 – went to Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins’ campaign.

First District Rep. Roger Wicker of Tupelo also has benefited from the Scruggs’ weal, the FEC database shows.

Scruggs’ troubles spur political finger-pointing

Altogether, the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal, Scruggs has given $163,450 since 2000. So, at least $38K of that apparently went to Republicans, despite Scruggs' reputation as a Democratic fundraiser.

While most of the folks he's given to are "moderates", rhetorically, at least, they sure don't seem to have any other connection to each other. Perhaps a look at their records would shed some light, but I don't think they've been especially resistant to "tort reform", the rubric for limiting how much corporations can be punished for malfeasance, fraud, and negligence. Presumably, Scruggs' interest would be in trying to limit that effort.

One of Scruggs' co-defendants, former Mississippi state auditor Steven Patterson also gave to Republicans:

Patterson, a long-time Democratic operative, is not without his GOP favors: $1,000 to Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning’s campaign and $250 to Indiana Rep. Mark Souder.

Scruggs’ troubles spur political finger-pointing

You have to wonder at these choices, particularly Bunning. I realize the pickings are mighty slim on the Right side of the aisle these days, but I'm sure I could have picked a better candidate to support than Bunning, whose mind seems to have died along with his fastball.

A quick survey of this report(PDF) by Common Cause and Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund shows that both Democrats and Republicans have received contributions from one of Scruggs' nemeses, the tobacco industry. The list of Congressmen who have received funding from this group is depressingly long, and seems to include the majority. Both Republicans and Democrats, incidentally are among those who have received no contributions. Clearly, for this lobby at least, influence can be peddled on both sides of the aisle.

Wonder why your cable rates are so high, and the service so bad? This quote from a Common Cause paper explains:

Since 1991, big cable has given $13.8 million to congressional candidates, nearly $7.7 million to Republicans and a little more than $6 million to Democrats. In addition, since 1998, the first year for which federal records were available, major cable interests spent more than $92 million lobbying in Washington.

Ask Yourself Why ... Cable Rates Got So High

[emphasis mine]

Anyone who recalls last year's debate on Net Neutrality knows just how little difference it makes if your legislator is a Democrat or a Republican. On this issue, the support cuts across party lines.

This is why I keep saying that fixing what's wrong with government isn't about electing Democrats. It has to be primarily about electing good people. If we don't improve the quality of the people in office, and clean up the elections process, then just changing the brand won't change very much at all.