Home > Corporations Bankroll Bush
Labor Research Association
http://www.laborresearch.org/story2.php/353
U.S. corporate executives are the primary force behind
the funding of President Bush’s $180 million 2004
election campaign war chest. By early April, Bush had
raised so much money that he suspended all further
fund-raising. He now has the largest campaign fund of
any candidate in U.S. history - almost double the
amount he raised for the 2000 election.
Bush ran his 2000 campaign with money still linked to
his Texas origins, but now relies heavily on the
national finance and investment community for his
campaign funding. By March of this year, Merrill Lynch
and PricewaterhouseCoopers had contributed nearly half
a million dollars each to the Bush campaign, according
to the Center for Responsive Politics.
UBS Americas, MBNA Corp., Goldman Sachs, Lehman
Brothers and Credit Suisse First Boston all gave Bush
more than quarter of a million dollars each.
Merrill Lynch’s 2004 contribution is double the largest
corporate contribution to Bush’s 2000 campaign -
$241,000 from MBNA. The finance/insurance/real estate
sector has become by far the most deeply invested in
Bush’s re-election, with well over $22 million in
campaign contributions and many of the sector’s CEOs
acting as top Bush fundraisers.
Stan O’Neal, CEO of Merrill Lynch, is one of Bush’s
biggest contributors and fund-raisers. Merrill Lynch
and other finance industry contributors publicly
support Bush’s proposals for privatizing Social
Security with individual investment programs. They
have also benefited from his capital gains and
dividends tax cuts.
Democratic candidate John Kerry has raised only $80
million, and will not be able to match the television
commercial blitz that the Bush campaign has already
launched.
Corporate contributions to Kerry are insignificant in
comparison to Bush’s take. Most of Kerry’s major
corporate contributors have given equal or greater
amounts of money to the Bush campaign to hedge their
bets.
Citigroup, Kerry’s largest corporate donor with almost
$80,000 in contributions, gave twice that amount to
Bush.
Goldman Sachs gave $64,750 to Kerry, but $282,725 to
Bush. Morgan Stanley gave $40,000 to Kerry and
$177,075 to Bush. UBS Americas gave $36,550 to Kerry
and almost ten times that amount -$352,850 - to Bush.
Both Bush and Kerry will receive $75 million each in
public funds after the national conventions meet this
summer.
Federal election laws ban companies from contributing
directly to candidates and limit individual
contributions to $2,000. To calculate corporate
contributions, the Center for Responsive Politics
includes the money contributed by the company’s PAC and
by individuals employed by the company. It also counts
donations from the individuals’ dependents.
Although a company cannot conduct fundraising events
for a candidate on site during work hours or directly
pressure employees to contribute to a specific
candidate, many executives host fundraisers outside of
the workplace and are free to invite anyone, including
employees.
Companies can circulate issue-oriented communications
to employees that make it clear that the company
believes that a candidate’s position on an issue is in
the best interests of the company and, by extension,
its employees.
A growing number of companies are also adopting the
traditional labor union strategy of sponsoring voter
registration and get-out-the-vote drives. In many
cases, the presumption is that employees will support
Bush along with the corporate officers and counter
union support for Kerry.
The largest corporations coordinate the campaign
megabucks, but Bush has plenty of support from small
and midsize companies, and they are an important source
of contributions. Middle-market CEOs strongly support
Bush, according to TEC International. Its first
quarter 2004 survey of 1,100 CEOs found that nearly
three-quarters will vote for Bush in November. Kerry
will garner just 16.4 percent of their votes.
Record-setting deficits, high unemployment, skittish
markets and wavering consumer confidence undermine the
claim that Bush is a logical choice for economic growth
and solid business conditions, but corporate support is
based on broader ideologies and an underlying
assumption that Bush’s policies will ultimately favor
business. In some sectors, such as financial services
and investment, specific issues are at stake.
The large and growing federal budget deficit means that
taxes for both individuals and corporations will have
to rise no matter who is elected in November. Bush’s
tax cuts have reduced federal receipts as a percent of
GDP from 21 percent in 2000 to less than 16 percent
this year. There is no money for the badly needed
federal education, R&D, job training and infrastructure
projects that could solidify the recovery.
Bush’s lock on corporate support is not complete, and
events between now and November could certainly shake
the support he now has. The near-term legacy of the
Bush presidency - inevitable increases in taxes,
interest rates and the trade deficit and the mixed
results of the Iraq war - may become more apparent
before the election.
[see also: ECONOMIC NOTES: NEWS AND ANALYSIS FROM THE
LABOR RESEARCH ASSOCIATION