Is it true democrats get more corporate donations then reps?

[Kamika]

vIm debating on another board and this guy is telling us the democratic party receives most million dollar donations infact 92% of all donations over 1million goes to the democratic party while 62% of all donations $200 and less goes to the republican party?

he backed it up with this link and asfar as i can tell it proves his point http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42947-2003Jun27

anyway anyone can prove him false?

heck heres his post

"Oh, this is going to be fun ...

64% of donations under $200 go to Republicans. 92% of donations over $1 million go to Democrats. "The only group favoring Democrats, in fact, were contributors giving more than $100,000 ... With the McCain-Feingold law capping total contributions at $95,000 per person, the Democrats are plain out of luck" (source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42947-2003Jun27 )

And we also have PAC/Special Interest Disbursements, here:

http://www.fec.gov/press/20020627pacstats/t50pac_15mo_disb.html

Please note that the largest GOP/Conservative special interest group, the NRA is #6 on the list, as well as the shear volume of Union disbursements.

Average annual donation to the RNC is somewhere in the <$100 range (2001 figures, here: http://www.illinoisgop.org/archives/storys/issue_76.html and here: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/june2001.htm
). Please note that the DNC refuses to release it's figures relative to average and median donation.

That's just a start ... I could go on and on but I think I've made my point"




anyway pleease help me debunk this

[La_Serpiente]

1. I would assume

that most of the money given to Democrats are what Republicans call "limosine liberals". For example, Haim Saban, the guy who made Might Morphin Power Rangers, donated millions of dollars to the Democrats in 2002. It is mostly the big organizations likes unions, which also covers individual donations I would assume, that give to Democrats as well.

[rogerashton]

2. They are individual and union donations, not corporate donations.

If unionized working people want to leverage their clout by contributing jointly, why should they not?

That said, the Pukes seem to have gotten the idea about information systems way before the dems did. Thus, they have data bases that track their suckers um I mean partisans and more or less automatically generate beg letters. This gets them a lot of medium-small donations, and those pull their MEDIAN down even if they get a few really huge donations. Dems have tried to match this by going to the bigger donors -- one of the interesting things about Dean is that his campaign seems to be changing this. Republicans should really FEAR Dean as he could destroy them even in losing.

It's the incompetence of the Democratic Leadership once again.

[trotsky]

3. Hmmm

I remember when that study came out, and I remember the conclusions being a little different. For one thing, I don't think the parties have to report donations under $200. So for the Post to claim that 64% of donations under that go to Repukes, I'm not sure where they would get that.

The more interesting question here is that if the Democrats have benefited from the large donations, why would rich people want to support the party that's going to raise their taxes?

Think about your average working family. Do you think they have even $100 to give to a party? The Dems are probably lucky to get $20 from most people in that situation. But your typical Republican family, dad making 6 figures, $100-$200 is no big deal. So I think the results get a little skewed in that way. Sure, Repubs might get more donations in that ballpark, but what's the average income of people who give that much? That would be a lot more telling.