Buckle up the Fiscal Cliff is guaranteed. Reply

I’m so proud that Patty Murray, House Democrat, and Maria Cantwell, Senate Democrat, are from Washington state.  Both have made comments this week stating that we would be better off going over the “fiscal cliff.” This kind of thinking is what made this country great.  We should never compromise with the “other” party.  Instead of compromise we should self-inflict credit down-grades, and avoid balancing a budget until we get sufficient leverage over the other party.  Why pay our bills anyway?  We’re America.  People will always buy our debt; where else are they going to go… Japan?  Hell the people who vote our Congress, President, and Senate in will only suffer a little bit from their unwillingness to do the job.  I mean, why solve such an important issue?  They can always go on vacation and push it further out.  It’s not as if, voters pay their salary. Oh wait.  If you can sift through the massive amount of sarcasm, follow me.

Let me be clear, it is NOT the point of this piece of this article to put down Democrats.  These two ladies have been the only law-makers that have made comments implying that it would be beneficial to jump off said cliff.  We all know that both sides are equally stubborn.  If you have ever had a question about where the House and Senate’s loyalties lie, this should make it VERY clear.  Instead of tirelessly working on a Grand Bargain that can lead to avoiding this problem, they are holding strong to their donors’ wishes.  This has nothing to do with voters.  If it did, they would get this solved.  Instead special interests, lobbyists, and large donors have their loyalties.  No one is willing to bend for fear that they will not have the flood of donations after all is said and done.  Bottom line, all they care about is being re-elected.  This fact looms largest: 94% of the time the winner of an election is the candidate that raised the most campaign money.  So in essence they know they will win yours/my vote if they spend enough money on the campaign.  The only way to do so is to keep their campaign donors, lobbyists, and special interests happy.

 

 

I wrote a letter to my local Senator Maria Cantwell… She replied. Reply

I don’t know that she actually read my letter.  It could have been a staffer that attached this custom response and sent it back, but I have to say that I have sent letters to other Senators and Congressmen.  This is the first response I have received that had anything to do with my letter.  I appreciate the fact that someone read the letter and had a legit response.  Here you go:

Dear Mr. Meyers,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

In 2007, Citizens United, a non-profit advocacy group, sued the Federal Election Commission to prevent it from enforcing certain provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). Among other things, the BCRA prevents corporations and labor unions from directly funding communications expressly advocating election or defeat of a federal candidate. In addition, corporations and unions are prohibited from funding “electioneering communications” 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election.

One of my proudest achievements as your Senator was enacting the first meaningful campaign finance reform legislation in decades – the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. That legislation was a critical breakthrough in the long battle to rein in campaign spending, to make improvements in the way politics is conducted, and to make government more responsive to our citizens. It passed through Congress with overwhelming majorities, sending a clear signal of our intent to prevent special interest money from overwhelming our electoral process. I disagree with the Supreme Court’s holding the corporations should be granted the same rights as individual citizens and I worry that this ruling will open the door to a flood of corporate spending that will drown out the voices of everyday Americans.

On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that these restrictions constitute a “ban on speech” in violation of the First Amendment. In effect, the ruling invalidates these provisions of the BCRA and overturns over 100 years of Supreme Court case law limiting the ability of corporations and unions to influence federal elections.

I believe that public financing is the best way to ensure that candidates can focus on the issues important to voters rather than raising money from special interests. Such an approach would help transform campaigns from negative attacks into substantive debates and government decision-making from a process influenced by money to one determined by ideas.

Senator Bernard Sanders (I-VT) introduced Senate Joint Resolution 33 on December 8, 2011. This resolution would propose an amendment to the Constitution that would reverse the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The resolution would reaffirm the authority of Congress and the states to regulate corporations and to set limits on all election contributions and expenditures. This resolution has been referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, where it awaits further review. In order for the proposed amendment to the Constitution to be ratified, it would require the support of two-thirds of each House of Congress and ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. If enacted, this resolution would amend the Constitution to limit the number of terms that a member of Congress may serve. The proposed term limits in the House of Representatives would be three terms and two terms in the Senate.

Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter. You may also be interested in signing up for periodic updates for Washington State residents. If you are interested in subscribing to this update, please visit my website at http://cantwell.senate.gov. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.

Sincerely, Maria Cantwell United States Senator
For future correspondence with my office, please visit my website at http://cantwell.senate.gov/contact/

Natural Gas exhonerates Speculators! 1

Ok, I have conversed with many via twitter that think speculators are the devil.  While I agree, as a speculator, that they are a part of the problem, I disagree that they drive price.  Instead, speculators only carry the momentum that is already pushed upon it by outside factors.  I am excited to point out the latest example of speculators being neutral when it comes to price.  Natural Gas is a commodity that is played just like oil.  There are a hundred different ways to play this commodity, but the most important point is that it is at multi-year lows.  Has demand gone down? No, but supply has gone up.  Due to fracking (no comment on the legitimacy of this process here) they are finding it under every rock in the U.S.  I exaggerate this on purpose.  Because the notion that it is everywhere is speculation.  Speculators are getting out of the trade because of an assumed over-supply.  They are correct!  This lowers the price to unheard of levels.  It is almost a 1/3 the price is was in 2010.  Where are the Senators now?  Why aren’t they out congratulating us?..  Hypocrites!

The major difference between Natural Gas and Gas at the pumps is that there are more factors for gas at the pump.  When it comes to gas, we are far more subject to feuding countries that supply it, and profit lines of major refiners here in the U.S.  Remember that it is Oil that is speculated, not the price of gas at the pump.  Big oil companies are profiting huge on the difference between the price of oil per barrel and what they can get at the pump.  Here is what I mean: Last April price of light sweet crude was $125 per barrel and oil companies were still able to make a good profit at $3.25 per gallon.  Now that oil is only $103 per barrel, they are able to charge over $4.10 at the pumps.  This isn’t speculation, but profit.

The GOP Conspiracy 1

Before I begin, I must be very clear that I am not a conspiracy theorist kind of guy nor an anti-Republican!  Therefore, it is an internal struggle to put this out there, but after several months of introspection I feel it is time.  The Republican Party seems to have conspired to keep Buddy Roemer out of the race for president.  He would never come out and say it because it opens him up for an all out attack from the party.  He would then have an even smaller chance to win an election.

What are the facts?

Buddy Roemer has all the experience you would want for a commander-in-chief.  At Harvard, he earned a BS in Economics and later an MBA in Finance.  From 1981 to 1988 he served as a Congressman.  From 1988 to 1992 he served as Louisiana’s Governor.  While there he cut the unemployment rate in half, reformed their campaign finance laws, and balanced the state’s budget.  I don’t mention this to get readers to vote for him, but to show how qualified he is to have been a candidate.  The problem isn’t what he has done, it is what he hasn’t: He has never accepted Super PAC, or special interest money.  Matter of fact, this has been his platform to get elected.  The fact that he doesn’t accept this money makes him an enemy of the state, if you will.

Imagine running Buddy out there when his platform of campaign finance reform and getting SuperPAC’s out of politics could make your party look bad, as a whole.  Fox News network, a GOP slanted news network, hasn’t even hinted that Buddy Roemer exists.  He was left out of all debates.  Why you might ask?  At first they told him he wouldn’t be allowed in the debates until he officially signed on as a candidate.  That makes perfect sense until you realize that several others hadn’t that they allowed in debates.  So, Buddy officially announces his running.  Then they told him that he had to have at least 2% of the votes of a given state to qualify.  Again, you might think that this is a fair request.  We cannot have everybody and their brother in a debate, but you have to know that when they required this from Buddy, John Huntsman, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry didn’t have 2% yet they were invited into these debates.  Despite the hypocrisy of the situation, Buddy attained the 2%.  Then they said he had to have 5% of the votes.  At this time only Perry and Bachmann didn’t have the 4% but they were allowed in the debates.  Matter of fact, Buddy was ahead of both of them in the polls.  You still saw no mention of his existence on Fox News and he wasn’t allowed into the debates.  Buddy Roemer was working hard to get the 4%, and then they dropped the bomb.  They told him that he had to have a minimum amount of money raised for his campaign to get in the debates that was far beyond what he had raised to that point.  This, they knew, went directly against his platform.  He will not accept more than $100 per campaign donation.

As a result, Buddy Roemer has dropped out of the GOP race and decided to run as an Independent via the American’s Elect process.  Although I’m voting for Governor Roemer and love his platform of Campaign Finance Reform, this is not my point.  I hate the fact that politics has come to this.  Republicans snubbed one of their own because he was a threat to their pocket-book.  Democrats would have done the same thing if the situation was reversed.  It is a bi-partisan problem.  They will do anything they can to “keep the money in.”  This is why we, as a Republic, have to fight our own apathy and do something about it.  We have to support someone like Buddy.  Even if you don’t plan on voting for him, you should want a man like him in upcoming presidential debates.  His take on money in government shouldn’t be silenced or big corporations will continue to own our democracy.  We have to get the money out, and supporting people like Buddy is a way of going about it.

 

 

 

Apathy vs. misdirection: Winner kills the Republic 1

Misdirection is a form of deception in which the attention of an audience is focused on one thing in order to distract its attention from another.  Apathy is a lack of enthusiasm or energy, lack of interest in anything, or the absence of any wish to do anything.

You have political ADD, prove me wrong and read the entire article.

I was watching a GOP debate in Florida a few months back.  Newt Gingrich had been taking heat from Mitt Romney because of his payments from Freddie Mac for his “historian” expertise.  Mitt was calling him out as an unregistered lobbyist without using the words.  Being that they were in Florida made it extremely poignant because of their high foreclosure rate.  Many people in the audience and in the state are/were profoundly affected by the economic crisis and inclined to hate big banks such as Freddie Mac.  Newt, came prepared, so he thought.  He attacked back.  Gingrich said Romney had personal holdings in “a part of Goldman Sachs that was explicitly foreclosing on Floridians.” He did; it’s called a blind trust. A blind trust is  a trust managed by third-party: a legal arrangement in which a trustee manages funds for the benefit of somebody who has no knowledge of the specific management actions taken by the trustee.  Assuming Newt had done his homework, he already knew this.

Why do I even point this out? It is a game of misdirection.  Government officials of all types are pointing out flaws on the other side to distract us from the big picture.  Democrats are turning the Treyvon Martin shooting into a political debate.  It shouldn’t be a debate of Republican versus Democrat.  It should simply be about convicting a murderer.  Republicans are doing everything in their power to bring down “Obama Care.”  They have turned it into a life-style choice.  Instead of the benefits of this program, they are looking at the fact that traditional medicare generally covers some sort of birth control.  “Why should I have to pay for this person’s sex-life?”  It shouldn’t be a question about paying for a sex-life, but instead about the logistics of paying for a nationwide health plan.  Debate that to death instead of trying to distract us from real issues like the fact that millions are without.  They have a very good argument when it comes to funding it, why not stick to that?  It’s not sexy enough!  They have to have multiple bullets in their distraction roulette game in the hope that one of them will hit their mark.  Democrats have, in turn, turned the Republican raised issue about paying for someone elses birth control with tax money into a “war on women.”  It is a beautiful spin making Republicans look rather sexist.  No matter how you look at it, it is a spin game.  Everything is to distract us from issues they don’t want in the headlines.

The issue that neither Republicans or Democrats want to focus on is campaign finance reform.  What?  You might say that is a huge leap.  You’re right, but hear me out for a moment.  Nothing in government is left untouched by the almighty dollar.  It is campaign dollars that push, manipulate, stall, and even write legislation.  The amount of money it takes to win an election these days is crazy, and it is getting crazier!  To keep their jobs, and their standing within their respective political parties is pushing politicians to continually fundraise.  Literally, they spend 30-60% of their time trying to put money in the war chest.  If you think that campaign donors expect nothing for their money, you are sadly mistaken.  Just looking at earmarks, there are hundreds of examples where donors are getting earmarks.  Matter of fact, I find it hard to find where an earmark didn’t benefit a campaign donor, or someone who spent millions lobbying and the lobbyist contributed to an earmarks sponsor.

If you think it is just earmarks just look at Greg Walden, Republican Congressman, who just introduced the Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act of 2012.  This act would significantly reduce the FCC’s ability to govern big media companies.  He receives hundreds of thousands of dollars from the very media companies that would benefit from this legislation.

Here is where the apathy comes in.  Your eyes have probably rolled back into your head and I’ve lost your attention.  I was talking to a buddy of mine about this stuff the other day and he said, “that’s just business as usual.”  It killed me! It is only business as usual because we allow it to happen.  We allow them to distract us with topics unrelated to their pay for play government.  We didn’t do this, but it is our job to collectively stand up and say no.  It isn’t ok to sell legislation to your biggest campaign donors.  We need to take our ADD medicine and stay on point.  We need campaign finance reform more importantly than any thing else.  Once real reform is done, we can focus on other important issues.  That way they are not tainted with corporate dollars.

 

Profit, not speculation, driving gas prices! Reply

One year ago Crude oil was $120 per barrel and never broke $3.25 at the pump. Currently, Crude Oil is resting at $102 per barrel and the average price at the pump is over $4.00.  Therefore, since April 2011, oil companies are saving $20 a barrel while gas prices have risen 23%. This equals a profit increase of 40%.  Real demand has been very steady, so we have to assume that prices are merely profit based.

Several Senators and Congressmen and women have come out to attack “rampid speculation.” Senator Bernie Sanders has gained popularity just for his stance against Wall Street on this issue.  Sanders is sponsoring the End Excessive Oil Speculation Now Act.  Now I don’t see any problem with this idea, but they are so far off the point here.  It is like Papa Bear getting mad at Mamma Bear because Goldilocks ate Baby Bear’s breakfast.

Speculation does have a piece of the blame here, but it is minute compared to the almighty profit of big oil companies.  Also, speculation drives the price down just as much as it drives the price up.  The major fault with speculation is that it swings the prices more dramatically than it would otherwise be.  For example, at the end of 2008 we thought the financial world was collapsing.  Because everything in speculation is anticipation, speculators figured that demand would diminish further than it actually had.  This assumption led to the price of oil to fall to $32 a barrel.  In actuality, it had dropped, but only minimally in the grand scheme of things.  Within a year, prices had gotten back to $80 a barrel.  At that price, everyone was pretty happy.  You see, $80 is the breaking point for big oil companies to make money.  They were returning to big profits and we were still under $3.00 per gallon at the pump… a far cry from being over the $4.00 we were seeing in the summer of 2008.

Exxon Mobile, a company I love, makes 17 billion dollars a year before taxes.  Knowing that they are losing money in Natural Gas, where do you think they are getting record profits?

 

Blatant attempt to buy legislation by AT&T other corps. Reply

This is definitely a gotcha piece in my opinion.  In 2011 AT&T sought to merge/acquire T-Mobile.  Cingular/AT&T is already the largest phone carrier.  The FCC denied the merger due to anti-compete laws.  The FCC did this to ensure that AT&T couldn’t create a monopoly in the cell phone arena.  Instead of taking this FCC ruling laying down, they are now trying to purchase legislation to limit the FCC’s rule over them.  They have enlisted Representative Greg Walden, Republican of Oregon, to do their dirty work.  I say enlisted but I really mean bought him off.  Yes I said it.  They directly donated $11k to his campaign.  This is three times their average donation to any elected official. T-Mobile kicked in another 10k as they are a beneficiary here. They wanted something special from this man.

He is returning the favor.  He has submitted to congress H.R. 3309: Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act of 2012.  This bill, if passed, would significantly reduce the power of the FCC to block anti-competitive mergers from taking place.  I’m sorry but this sounds like a cellular version of Glass-Steagall Act.  I understand that the ramifications aren’t nearly as dangerous as the repealing of Glass-Steagall, but think about the long-term effects something like this could garner.  AT&T could buy up any competition that gets in their way.  This may be a small thing, but if the competition is gone, what’s to stop them from charging whatever they want?  There is a reason for these anti-compete laws.

Let’s forget about the ramifications of AT&T being able to purchase T-Mobile for a second and focus on the REAL problem here.  Are we really ok with a company that doesn’t agree with laws just donating to a congressman’s campaign so that they can change the laws in their favor?  Is this not blatant purchase of laws.  Hell, let’s take it a step further.  It is government for sale.

Meanwhile Lobbyist Paul Unger is to be mentioned.  He has donated 10k to Mr. Walden because he represents Comcast and NCTA.  Both are donors to Walden; Comcast donated as much as $30k this election cycle.  Time Warner Communications $15k.  Do you see where I’m going here?  Everyone that has skin in this game is donating big to Representative Unger.  One might say, “they are just of the belief that Greg Walden is of similar political thought.”  If that was the case, they would have been donating him in the last election cycle.  Only AT&T was a donor of his last cycle.

He is being PAID to fight the FCC.  This will probably not pass the Senate, but I am worried that we will forget the fact that this is Pay4Play.

What if OWS had a single goal? Reply

Protests used to mean something.  We would protest Vietnam, equal rights, and equal liberties. I think that OWS peeps are onto something.  Just as our forefathering protestors before us, we have real issues at the heart of this movement.  Because these issues are not as overt as a sign outside a restroom door saying, “whites only” it doesn’t mean they aren’t extremely important.  The difference is that our government no longer has our best interests at heart.  They are far more concerned about justifying the huge donation they got from Corporation X.  They are in debt to their campaign donors.  It is dividing our country.

When Occupy Wall Street first began, I immediately thought of them as misguided.  Why? Because they are protesting the rich in general.  What good is that?  I’m not mad at my neighbor because he has more money than I do!  Just the same, I’m not mad at the stock broker on Wall Street if he is successful enough to drive a Lamborghini.  Who we should be mad at is our elected officials for allowing our country to be bought off.  Heck, they didn’t just allow it, they encouraged it.  They paved the way for eliminating the Glass-Steagall Act, increased the potency of Super PAC’s, forced lenders to lend to unworthy candidates, etc. etc.   In the never ending quest for campaign funding, they have sold our Republic’s soul.

I understand the frustrations of Occupiers, I just wish they focused their attention on the “fix.”  If OWS decided they wanted real change, they can force it.  If every occupy movement started communicating with each other, they could come up with common goals.  They all agree that money has corrupted our system, so why not take up campaign finance reform.  If they were to put together a piece of legislation and bring it to a Congressman/Senator that agrees with them, they could use their vast voting leverage to push it through congress.  They could call on media to help spread a single message and reach every single state.  The power of Twitter and Facebook is at their finger tips to help get this message across.

My message to you Occupiers: Stop talking about what is wrong, focus on a goal, coordinate your voting leverage, and try to get legislation into effect that “fixes” the issues.

The Republican Democrat Chasm spawned from Greed. Reply

A couple of years ago it was reported that Brett Favre’s presence in the Vikings locker room had created a Chasm.  There were teammates loyal to the quarterbacks who had already been there a few years, and doubted whether Brett could still lead a team.  In the end, he won over the locker room and got them to the NFC championship.  I always thought it was a strange way to use the turn chasm, but it couldn’t have been a more profound way of looking at the situation.  Two sides were divided by a belief and loyalties.

Today we are facing a grave situation.   Our political structure has become divided by political beliefs and loyalties, but there is no Brett Favre that can unite the team.  One would think that a president could pull together opposing sides and bridge that gap, but it is being reinforced.  Worse yet, the two chasms are actually being paid to be different. At least in Brett Favre’s situation, their team was paid to come together.  In our government, you have the Republicans being politically backed by large corporations that want limited government and a weak tax structure.  On the Democrat side, you have Unions and other interests that donate to enlarge government regulations and directly conflict with donors that back Republican issues.  This may seem obvious, but it is creating such a stalemate that nothing can get done.  The frustration is boiling over to a disgusting display of word twisting.  Both sides are culpable and both sides are ruining our country.

Because our media is no longer attempting to be unbiased, they are feeding the flames.  Instead of reporting facts, they are using only the facts that favors their side.  For example, Obama bashing is now become a sport on Fox News, a Republican slanted news channel.  In an attempt to create a mental link for the audience, you will often hear Obama referred to by his entire name: Barack Hussein Obama.  This is trashy news commentary trying to connect him to the decease dictator of Iraq.  It is the same on MSNBC News.  They often paint with a broad brush stroke trying to paint the entire Republican base with ignorant and racist strokes.  For example, instead of focusing on the fact that religious affiliated churches don’t want to sell birth control because it directly conflicts with their faith, they say that all Republicans want to get rid of birth-control.  It is a obsurdity, and unfair to force a Catholic Hospital to sell something that is against their faith.  What you will get is Catholic Hospitals closing up shop rather than knowingly commit a sin.  Who would that benefit?  Republicans, as a whole, have no problem with people going elsewhere for birth control.  You see where I’m going with this.

Both sides are intentionally creating a chasm.  They are trying to draw clearer and clearer lines in the sand intended to draw support from opposition and create more of a need for donations.  Obviously, companies that carry birth control are going to feel the need to support a democrat in elections if they are being convinced that Santorum will shut down or even affect their margins.  The same is happening on the other side.  A company like Haliburton or Lockheed Martin is reading that Democrats want to tax them into oblivion and reduce government spending on defense contracts.  The truth might be far from the truth, but they are hedging their bets by backing Republican candidates.  For the purposes of this article, I won’t even go into the tax loopholes, earmarks, and subsidies that they are trying to garner from both sides by donating.  Government officials are becoming very successful.  Donations to campaigns are at all time highs.  For example, the Presidential campaign is already 460% above its mark at this point in the last election.  Super PAC’s are pouring money into campaigns.  If you simply look at current GOP candidates, it is not uncommon to see an average of $460 spent per vote in close districts.

The result of this hemorrhage of money is that campaigns and media are devoid of all decency and unbiased truths.  Making comments like, “Romney wants to send little old ladies back to Mexico,” or “Obama shouldn’t apologize to Muslims for burning the Koran” are playing on stereotypes, fears, and racist beliefs.  Our country is being taught racism.  Political figureheads are playing on the fact that fear is creating a racist divide between Muslim and Christian beliefs.  Millions of Muslims are peaceful, but if we say it enough we can get a voter in South Carolina to believe that Obama is bowing to a murderous culture.

Our country still is the greatest country in the world.  Our freedoms that have been paid for in blood are something to be treasured, but greed in our government is driving rhetoric that will destroy our country and our freedoms.  American culture is becoming two different cultures and the before mentioned rhetoric is deepening and widening the great chasm.  Now more than ever, we have to get the money agenda out of Washington and clean up our Media or there will be no Republic to repair.

Earmarks are a Microcosm of how Government Works 7

Corporations have bought off our government.  Below is a list of some of the earmarks for 2010 that went to campaign donors.  You have to see a list like this to see the gravity of the situation, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.  I cannot show you every single earmark that went to campaign donors.  I would to make a point, but it is simply too much raw data.  I know no one will read this line item by line item, but the extent will grab attention.  This is just to illustrate how bad it really is.  Also, I understand that earmarks are just a small percentage of the National Budget, but you have to remember they are a microcosm of how government works.  Tax loopholes, subsidies, tariffs, anti-competition laws, etc. etc. are all written in this same manner.  They just aren’t as clearly stated that they were written for Company X that might have donated to Congressman Y’s campaign via straight donation or Super PAC.  Enjoy:

Tim Bishop Rep. (D-NY) got $13.5k in donations from STIDD Systems and gave them a $3.6mil earmark.

David Dreier (R) Rep of Cal. received donations from Chang Ind. and rewarded them w/ a $3.2mil earmark.

• Aerovironment Inc: Donation to Dreier equals $1mil earmark.

Rich Shelby (R) Senator of Alabama gave 23 earmarks for $90mil to campaign donors or companies that lobbied him.

Sam Johnson (R) of Texas: L-3 Comm. donated to his campaign, and he gave them a $3.04mil earmark.

• SVTronics Inc also has a cozy relationship w/ Johnson that took the next step to a $2.72mil earmark (3rd base)
• Rockwell Collins Inc, gets a $2.4mil earmark for their efforts in lobbying and donating to his campaign.
• Raytheon Co. donated heavily to his camp and was rewarded w/ $1.6mil earmark.
• Mustang Tech., Sam Johnson campaign donor, got a $800k earmark.

Tim Murphy (R) of PA received campaign $ from Curtiss-Wright Corp via PAC’s and rewarded them w/ $2.88mil in earmarks.

• Converteam Inc., a campaign donor of Murphy’s, also got an earmark.  This one only $1.6mil.
• PPG Ind. donated directly, through PAC, and lobbied him to get their earmark of $1.6mil.
• Eaton Corp., another Murphy donor, got a $600k earmark sponsored by Murphy.
• National Center for Defense Mfg & Machinery donated to his campaign and was rewarded w/ a $1.6mil earmark.

One of Ed Pastor’s, (D) of AZ, biggest campaign donors is Honeywell Int.  He sponsored 2 earmarks of $4mil and $3.2mil.

• United tech. lobbied/donated to campaign and got a $4mil earmark courtesy of Mr. Pastor.
• Robertson Aviation dropped 100k on lobbying, much of which on Mr. Pastor.  They got a $2.4mil earmark via Pastor.
• BAE systems, a Pastor donor, also got a $2.4mil earmark.
• Goodrich Corp.  donated through PAC’s and received a $2mil earmark.

(R) Robert Aderholt AL congressman gave a $6mil earmark to Victory Solutions.  You guessed it, they’re donors to his camp.

• QinetiQ North America spent a ton of $ lobbying Aderholt and was rewarded w/ a $3.2mil earmark.
• Miltec Corp supported his campaign, and he supported their bottom line w/ a $3.2mil earmark.
• Peopletec Inc.  Same deal.  Donated/lobbied and got an 3.2mil earmark.  Goes around comes around, I guess.
• J2 Technologies donated to his campaign and got a mere $3mil in earmarks.  Wonder were their .2mil went.
• SUMMA Technology spent 30k on lobbying Mr. Aderholt, and was the recipient of a $2.4mil earmark.
• Intergraph Corp. donated to his campaign and magically got a $2.32mil earmark.
• Raytheon Co: 1 of Edward J Markey’s (D. Representative of MA) 10 biggest donors got a $4mil earmark.
• Foster-Miller spent 32k lobbying Markey and got a $3.2mil earmark.

Cerus Corp. dropped over 160k lobbying Edward J. Markey D. of Mass. and was rewarded w/ 2 seperate earmarks of $2.4mil.

• ‎123 Systems: Edward Markey of MA, a $2mil earmark. Oh, ya they donated to his campaign too.
• QD Vision lobbys Edward Markey for a Nanocrystal Source Display: They get an earmark.

Rep. Joe Courtney (D) of Conn. biggest campaign contributor was General Dynamics… Yes they got a $4.8Mil earmark from him.

• Honeywell was a big contributor & Lobbied him, they got a $4mil earmark sponsored by Courtney.
• United Tech., his 4th largest donor, got a $4mil earmark that he sponsored.
• Alion Science & Tech., donated and lobbied Courtney,  weird how they got a $3.6mil earmark via Courtney.

IN (R)Dick Lugar got camp. $ from Altair,Flagship Ent, AmeriQual, and Allison Trans. Each got their own earmarks of $3mil or more

Steve Buyer (R) of IN received donations from Society of Indep Gas Marketers, BP, Bridgestone, Marathon Oil, and XCel Energy Pac.  No wonder  he twice co-sponsored: Disapproving a rule submitted by the EPA relating to the endangerment finding and the cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.

Mark Souder (R) of IN sponsored $3.6mil in earmarks for Raytheon Co.  and yes they were one of his biggest donors.

Andre Carson (D) of IN sponsored $9.8mil in earmarks.  1/2 of that money went to campaign donors or peeps that lobbied him.

David Loebsack (D) of IA earmarked $9.6mil for Rockwell Collins Inc. after they donated to his campaign.  $9.6mil.

R of Kan Representative Todd Tiahrt’s biggest campaign donor was Boeing.  He got a $6mil dollar earmark just for them.

• Hawker Beechcraft, a Tiahrt donor/lobbyer got a $7mil earmark courtesy of Mr. Tiahrt’s sponsorship.
• Kaman Corp. Lobbys him and donates to his campaign to get a modest $3mil earmark.
• Curtis-Wright Corp is a big donor and receives a measley $1.6mil earmark.

Steven Rothman D of NJ set aside $5.6mil in earmarks for Stevens Inst. of Tech. You guessed it, they were campaign donors.

• Dynamic Animation Systems: Yup donated to his campaign and hired lobbyists to get in Rothman’s ears and they get a $3.5mil earmark.
• Covanta is yet another down the line where they donate and get an earmark.  This time, $2.5mil.
• Absecon Mills donor gets $2mil in earmarks
• Phacil Inc lobby’d Mr. Rothman and gave to his campaign, they were rewarded w/ a $2mil earmark.
• General Dynamics too donates to his campaign and lobbys his office and is rewarded yet another $1.68mil earmark.

Bill Young earmarked $4mil for Alliant Techsystems after they contributed to his campaign and hired lobbyists to pull his ear.

• Alakai Consulting and Engineering donated to Billy and only got $1.6mil in earmarks.
• Contributor Honeywell got $1.6.
• SAIC donated to the campaign and got 2.4mil in earmarks from him.
• Bill Young R of FL co-sponsored 64 earmarks totalling $128million.
• Raytheon Co. a $4mil benificiary contributed to his campaign.

John B. Larson D. of CT received $87k in contributions from United Tech. and rewarded them w/ $4mil in earmarks.

• Honeywell contributed to his campaign and got another $5.6mil in earmarks.

Jim Moran has been a naughty boy.  If you look at ITT Corp, one of his donors, he granted them a $1.6mil earmark for their support.

• Argon ST got 2.4 million and donated to his campaign.
• Dynamis Inc. same story.  Donated to campaign; got $2mil in earmark money.
• ObjectVideo Inc. same story: Donated and got $2mil in earmark money.
• Innovative Defense Tech. Same-Same.. Donated to get $2.0mil in earmark money.
• Dynamic Animation Systems then next in a long line of earmarks for this guy.  Donated and got a $2mil earmark in return.
• Progeny Systems donated to him and only got $1.6mil in earmark money.
• ITT Corp. got 1.6mil for their campaign contributions.
• EM Solutions, another $1.6 million dollars in earmarks.
• DDL OMNI Engineering.  $1.6 million and a donor.
• MobilVox Inc. 1.6mil
• SyTech Corp got $1.6 mil for radio inter-operability system from earmark money after donating to his campaign.
• SAIC Inc dontated and got 1.6mill too.
• Curtiss-Wright Corp secured 1.6 mil in earmarks through their contributions to Jim Moran.
• Jim Moran (D) of VA also gave ManTech Int. a $2mil earmark; they too a big donor to his campaign.
• BriarTek Inc. was Jim Moran (D) of VA 5th biggest financial campaign supporter and was rewarded w/ a $2.4mil earmark.
• IR-Vascular Facial Fingerprinting is what they are getting the earmark for.  via the defense spending.

(R) Doc Hastings sponsored two seperate earmarks of $2.4mil that went to Honneywell and Infinia, both were top donors to his campaign…

(D) Adam Smith co-sponsored $3.5m in earmarks for Lockheed Martin.  Lockheed is one of his top five campaign contributors…