Behind Closed Doors Democrats Jump in Bed for Corporate Interests

What's the answer to "What would Corporations stand to gain by aligning themselves with" Democrats? Access.

"Companies, after all, are not charities. They have a legal obligation to look after their shareholders so money out ought to mean some benefit in. What they get above all is access. If the chief executive of Ford or GE calls the White House, phones in the Oval Office get picked up."

Corporations are for profit and look out for their own best interest. Why would a Corporation give money to a Republican in Massachusetts, when the Republicans don't win? What would a Corporation gain from supporting a looser? That's just wasted money. If a Corporation gives money to a New York Democrat, when the Corporation knows the Democrat will win, then the Corporation can say that they helped support the winner and they can get favorable treatment. If a Corporation supports the candidate against the winning Democrat (for the Republican), they gain nothing. This is also what gives incumbents an advantage. Corporations can have working mutually beneficial relationships with the current incumbent (even if they're a Democrat) and changing to a new person (even if they're a Republican) would mean starting from scratch on their relationship. It would be in a Corporations best interest to keep working with the current politician (Democrat), where they could get deals now and in the future (as opposed to starting over with a Republican and getting nothing now and maybe nothing later).

Why would current Corporations choose a Kerry Challenger? Everyone feels that this is a close election. It's best to hedge your bet. Corporations like Microsoft are from a Blue State (Washington), it continues to help them at the Corporate State headquarters to be more pro-Kerry. Especially since contributions are open, and everyone can see them (like Governors, Senators, Congressmen), it might hurt them more at the Corporate Headquarter state-level to be more pro-Bush. Other Blue State Corporations (New York Times, Viacom(CBS), NBC, New York Yankees, Boston Red Socks, Qwest, John Hancock Financial Services) can only be helped by supporting Kerry, because it will be friendly to the State Governments where they reside.

Bush has adopted fiscally liberal policies to get our economy back on track. Bush was borrowing money to stimulate our economy now. This has helped the stock market, but hurt bond markets. That means that Financial Institutions that trade stocks are going to have better profits with Bush, but Financial Institutions that are more of a Bond Business will have greater profits under Kerry, who promises to pay off the deficit (and Kerry will probably veto Republican spending bills, which would further improve Bond markets). Even though taxes may be raised, pro-Bond policies of Kerry will cause their profits to be greater.

Law Firms are overwhelmingly for Kerry, because Bush said he is opposed to frivolous lawsuits. Bush wasn't to decrease the amount that trial lawyers can profit off of people's hardships. Edwards and Kerry only want to increase the profits of their trial lawyer friends (which they spin as fighting for the little guy against evil Corporations, even though their Law Firms are giant Corporations).

Corporations will also donate for perfered status. For example Kerry has touted opening up our markets to Canadian Drugs that have not passed FDA standards to bring down the price of persciption drugs. Since Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis and Bristol Meyers Squibb have donated to the Kerry campaign, I'm sure the Canadian Competator to each of their Corporation's #1 profiting drug will not pass the bar to be allowed in to the US with all the other Canadian drugs that will be allowed in. These Big Drug Companies are buying exempt status from Kerry's policy.

Terry McAuliffe, current head of the DNC, was an expert at offering Corporations more reasons to align with Democrats. Terry McAuliffe "learned an early lesson. No enterprise was off-limits, no matter how tarnished the reputation of the company: weapons-makers, oil companies, chemical manufacturers, banks, sweatshop tycoons. Indeed, McAuliffe made his mark by targeting corporations with festering problems, ranging from liability suits to environmental and worker safety restraints to bothersome federal regulators. The more desperate these enterprises were for political intervention, the more money McAuliffe knew he could seduce into DNC coffers. What about environmental groups? Big labor? The traditional core of the Democratic Party? Not only didn't their objections (assuming they voiced any) matter, they actually made McAuliffe's pitch more appealing to the corporadoes. After all, the Republicans didn't have any sway over these organizations." (http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair10192004.html). This is some of the reason that some Environmental complaints about Corporations I find very partisan. The Red Corporations get attacked for similar policies Blue Companies have, especially by news organizations like the New York Times, Viacom(CBS), NBC and even CNN (all shown as partisan here: http://www.capitaleye.org/mediacontribs.6.2.03.asp, http://www.campaignmoney.com/cnn.asp). Blue Corporations do not get held accountable and Environmental groups are told by their Democratic Party counterparts to focus on what Red Corporations are doing and not to focus on what the Blue Corporations are doing. It shows in the excerpt above that it actually helped if they were violators, because the Democrats had influence over these special intrest groups who might protest the Blue Corporations (like Environmentalists). This has always seemed highly hypocritical to me. But I guess like the Drug Companies supporting Kerry, they bought exempt staus.

For example Democrat Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle has been a long time friend and ally to the Environmental lobbyists. During his last election Republican John Thune almost beat Daschle in a close race. The logging Companies courted Daschle to turn on his long time Environmentalist allies and create deforestation legislation to give them greater profits and stop the law suits Environmentalists has against the logging Companies. In fact, Daschle made the whole state of South Dakota exempt from the National Forest Management Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, so he could accept favor from the logging industry. Conversely, the logging industry bought exmption from Democrat Tom Daschle (the Corporation sponsored a liberal).

I believe this is why the liberal propaganda portrays many, if not all, Republicans as having no morals and no convictions. When many liberals give Corporations benefits, it may go against their morals, but they may see it as a necessary evil to win, to accomplish a greater good. On the other hand, when a conservative Republican cuts taxes, because they believe it is the best way to promote job gowth, it may seem to the liberal that the Corporations have total control over this valueless politician. The liberal never (or rarely if ever) sees that Republican as lowering taxes, because they believe lowering taxes is a good economic stimulus. When a Republican lowers Corporate taxes, the liberal sees a heartless sell-out to Corporate intrests, but the Republican may be lowering Corporate Taxes to stop Multinational Corporations from moving their Headquarters overseas to other nations, which would hurt the US economy. No, the liberal does not see reducing Corporate Taxes as stopping/reducing Corporations leaving the US, they see it as a shameless valueless sell-out of all conviction to Corporate intrests. The liberal Corporations of the New York Times, Viacom(CBS), NBC and CNN certainly resists the message, that these beliefs may be core convictions of candidates, from ever getting out effectively.

"In the early 90s, really big money began to pour into the DNC. McAuliffe recruited robust donations from Arco and Chevron, Entergy and Enron, Phillip Morris and Monsanto, Boeing and Lockheed, Citibank and Weyerhaeuser. Many of these corporations had all but abandoned the Democrats during the Reagan era. McAuliffe lured them back with promises of favorable treatment by a new generation of anti-regulatory Democrats attuned to the special needs of multinational corporations. This was the mulch bed from which the Clinton presidency took root. By 1994, Clinton himself had aligned himself to McAuliffe's magic touch. He tapped him as the chief fundraiser for the 1996 reelection campaign. In this capacity, McAuliffe masterminded some of the more risqué political fundraising operations since the Kennedy era." (http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair10192004.html) What happened to our Anti-Trust Laws? The New Democrats (McAuliffe and Clinton) of the 90's are the one's that gave "promises of favorable treatment by a new generation of anti-regulatory Democrats attuned to the special needs of multinational corporations".

In summary, there is no benefit for a Corporation to support a Republican over a Democrat, no matter how low they promise to make taxes, if there's no way the Republican can win (Dole). Corporations will side with the winners (whatever side that may be), not the losers. Although financially supporting Federally loosing candidates, can be beneficial, if the State's Governing Party agrees with that Corporations donation (New York Times, Microsoft, Qwest, Viacom, NBC, New York Yankees, John Hancock Financial Services). Liberal policies can make more money for certain Corporations (Lawyers). Conservative (fiscally conservative) policies of individual Democrats can benefit certain job sectors (like Kerry promising to pay down the deficit, thereby benefiting Financial Bond Market Corporations). And lastly Corporations can buy exempt status from whatever Liberal policies the Democrat candidate wishes to impose on non-donors.