Dems Voting Yes on Bailout Received Two Times More From Banks & Securities

For Immediate Release

MAPlight.org
Contact: 

Pamela Heisey, pamela@maplight.org, phone: 415.299.0898

Dems Voting Yes on Bailout Received Two Times More From Banks & Securities

WASHINGTON - Members of the
U.S. House of Representatives today voted against a $700 billion
financial system bailout. MAPLight.org has found that, over the past five years, banks and securities firms gave an average of $231,877 in
campaign contributions to each Representative voting in favor of the
bailout
, compared with an average of $150,982 to each Representative voting against the bailout--54 percent more money given to those who voted Yes. 205 Representatives voted Yes and 228 voted No, with
1 Not Voting.

House Democrats split their votes on this bill, 140 voting Yes and 95
voting No. Democrats voting Yes received an average of $212,700 each, about twice as
much as those voting No, $107,993.

House Republicans also split their votes on this bill, 65 voting Yes and 133 voting No (and 1 not voting).
Republicans voting Yes received an average of $273,181 each, 50% more than those voting No, $181,688.

"Profit-driven companies wouldn't be making campaign contributions
if it didn't buy them influence or access," said Daniel Newman,
MAPLight.org's executive director. "Votes in Congress align with the
river of money that flows through our political system."

Votes on H.R. 3997, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008

Average amount banks and securities firms gave to U.S. House Members:

 

 

Average amount given to each legislator voting this way

House Members (All)

voted Yes

$231,877

 

voted No

$150,982

House Democrats voted Yes $212,700
  voted No $107,993

House Republicans

voted Yes

$273,181

  voted No $181,688

To view how each legislator voted: http://www.maplight.org/map/us/bill/72675/N7DgM9/votes/votedetail-351995

Methodology:

MAPLight.org's analysis used data from the Center for
Reponsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) and included campaign funds given
from January 2003 through August 2008 by these industries: banks
(including commercial banks, savings & loans, and investment
banks), credit unions, finance companies, stock exchanges, venture
capital and private equity firms, hedge funds, and securities and
commodities brokers and firms. Data includes both PAC and individual
contributions. We used Congressional voting records
from the U.S. House website, via GovTrack.us.

Financial Services Sector - Contribution History

The financial services sector has contributed more to candidates for
Congress, Presidential candidates, and political parties than any other
sector, totaling $339,649,585 from 2007-present.
Source: http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/sectors.php

The sector has also contributed heavily to both John McCain and
Barack Obama's Presidential campaigns in 2007-2008: $22,108,926 to Sen.
McCain and $24,860,257 to Sen. Obama.
Source: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sectorallc.php?cycle=2008

The financial services sector has been a top campaign contributor
for years, donating more than $2 billion to Federal candidates from
1989 through today.
Source: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F

Note: The financial services sector referenced on OpenSecrets.org
includes more industries than just the banking and securities
industries MAPLight.org examined in this vote correlation report.

Looking Back: Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 (Gramm-Leach-Bliley)

In 1999 Congress passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill, with bipartisan support,
allowing the nation's largest banks to get even larger and take
risks that had been prohibited since the Great Depression. A recent CRP analysis
found that legislators who voted for this act received twice as much
from the financial, insurance and real estate sectors as those who
voted against it. Citigroup was the Act's most aggressive supporter.

MAPLight.org's
research department reveals how contributions correlate with
legislation so that citizens have key information needed to draw their
own conclusions about how campaign contributions affect policy.
Campaign contributions are only one factor affecting legislator
behavior. The correlations we highlight between industry and union
giving and legislative outcomes do not show that one caused the other,
and we do not make this claim. We do make the claim, however, that
campaign contributions bias our legislative system. Simply put,
candidates who take positions contrary to industry interests are
unlikely to receive industry funds and thus have fewer resources for
their election campaigns than those whose votes favor industry
interests.

About MAPLight.org:
MAPLight.org is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501(c)(3) organization
based in Berkeley, California. Its search engine at MAPLight.org
illuminates the connection between Money And Politics (MAP) via a
database of campaign contributions and legislative outcomes. Data
sources include: GovTrack.us; Center for Responsive Politics
(OpenSecrets.org); Federal Election Commission (FEC); and National
Institute on Money in State Politics (NIMSP). Support and opposition
data is obtained through testimony at public hearings, proprietary news
databases and public statements on the websites of trade associations
and other groups. To learn more visit: MAPLight.org.

 

###

MAPLight.org is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501(c)(3) organization based in Berkeley, California. Its search engine at MAPLight.org illuminates the connection between Money And Politics (MAP) via a database of campaign contributions and legislative outcomes. Data sources include: GovTrack.us; Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org); Federal Election Commission (FEC); and National Institute on Money in State Politics (NIMSP). Support and opposition data is obtained through testimony at public hearings, proprietary news databases and public statements on the websites of trade associations and other groups. To learn more visit: MAPLight.org.

Share This Article

More in: