A real interesting mega money issue worth watching both on a Federal and State level is electric utility deregulation. DeLay and some of his cronies have been pushing for electric utility deregulation big time. ENRON one of the key players, and, big spenders maybe headquartered in DeLays district; maybe some of the Texans on the list can fill us in.
The tiny Utility Workers union (43,000 members) has been the main opposition to electric utility deregulation. The Utility Workers have a well educated leadership and their rank and file has style. The AFL-CIO is supporting the Utility Workers position and has issued strong statements against electric utility deregulation.
It's a boring issue with profound and long range consequences.
Sincerely, Tom L.
Doug Henwood wrote:
> Greg Nowell wrote:
>
> >Doug my website source,
> >http://www.citizen.org/tobacco, gives $43 million in
> >lobbying in the first six months of this year; in
> >addition to the now well-developed skew in campaign
> >contributions. I think there is more to this than you
> >allow.
>
> It also says that's compared to $15m last year. The industry's back is to
> the wall - what do you expect?
>
> And how does this compare to other interests? I don't see this in the
> report. But the Center for Public Integrity estimates that the Mexican
> government spent $30 million lobbying for NAFTA. In 1993 and 1994, the
> medical industry spent $100 million lobbying against national health
> insurance (again, according to the Center for Public Integrity). And here's
> what the Center for Responsive Politics reports for all of 1997
> <http://www.crp.org/lobbyists/industry.htm>:
>
> 1997 LOBBYING COSTS BY INDUSTRY
>
> Agriculture $ 81.6
> of which: tobacco 38.2
> Communications/Electronics 150.4
> Construction 16.6
> Defense 49.6
> Energy & Natural Resources 137.4
> Finance, Insurance & Real Est 177.1
> Health 158.6
> Lawyers & Lobbyists 12.7
> Transportation 112.6
> Misc Business 157.5
> Labor 19.9
> Ideological/Single-Issue 73.0
> Other 66.2
> --------
> total $1,213.2
>
> Tobacco, then, accounted for 3% of the total. Pikers next to FIRE - the
> insurance industry spent almost twice as much as the merchants of tubular
> death.
>
> >Moreover, the big democratic recipients of tobacco
> >money were southerners, so you total figures do not
> >reflect an even bigger skew when the regional factor is
> >weighed. While it is as a general rule prudent for
> >capital to "buy both sides" it is nonetheless
> >indicative of big movements in the way thigns work when
> >money starts pouring into one party only.
>
> An interest that concentrates its resources on one party in one region -
> which probably would have voted its way anyway - can hardly be said to be
> changing many minds.
>
> Doug