Campaign contributions are the window to the political soul. Who you support with your dollars says what you believe is right for a "better Minnesota".

At halftime of my research...the first half of the list...I have logged $2,499,781 in contributions. Currently, 95.6% is contributed to DFL/Democrats and their causes...3.8% to GOP...1/2% to others. Out of almost $2.5 million, about $2.4 million went to DFL.

Anyone want to debate that this list of millionaires is NOT a simple front group for the DFL? Its just another example of how the DFL wants to fool you into believing their outdated and pathetic agenda, which is "I got mine, now I' tax away YOURS".

Dave can you specify "DFL/Democrats and their causes".

On the Lady Logician's site she implies that donations to the arts and environment are DFL causes.

Fulcrum:

DFL/Democrat candidates....specifically. In DFL causes, I classified the following:

A PAC that Tom Daschle runs
DFL Mn Party, Central committee, any CD
DFL House and Senate caucuses
Emily's List
America Coming Together
Moveon.org
21st Century Democrats
Planned Parenthood PAC
NARAL Minnesota
Democratic Advancement PAC
DCCC/DSCC
Keeping America's Promise
Jean Carnahan's PAC
Friends of DFL Women

Under Other I classified Independence Party of Minn

Under GOP I classified Minn Republican Party

If I had found Taxpayers League of Minnesota, Heritage Foundation, Christian Coalition, NRA, etc....I would have classified them GOP.

I don't think you can argue the assignments to the DFL, and besides, they make up a pittence of the money anyway.

Donations to arts and enviroment might be leaning DFL, but not fair to use. I understand her point, but its not as completely clean-cut as using the FEC and State contribution reports.

As I complete my halftime show, I will mention one last observation:

In the first 1/2 of the list, I did not find even ONE dollar being contributed to either Rod Grams or Mark Kennedy. Over 100 people reviewed. Not ONE penny. Does that say something about the people on this list?

Planned Parenthood PAC, NARAL Minnesota? There are plenty of pro-choice Republicans, despite the party's attempts to purge them.

This choice clearly demonstrates your bias.

I imply NO SUCH THING Fulcrum - you do. I showed the charitable giving because I thought it was important to show that these folks do more than give money to politicians. Simply showing the the political contributions makes for an incomplete picture of the person!

The charitable giving (in a couple of chases) was telling in that the person gave several thousand dollars to politicians on a few hundred to causes that (according to the ad) were important to these people!

I should also note that many of the people on my list were retired and as such their "employers" are the boards of charities that they sit on.

Yeah, idiotclown...there are SOOOOOO many Republicans endorsed or given money NARAL and Emily's list.

Of course, you ignore the simple fact that not ONE of the traditional pro-Republican groups appear in the donor lists. NRA? Nope. How about the Freedom Club. Nope.

Even better...if I removed all the Emily's List or NARAL or other liberal PACs/organizations....the impact is about 100k. BIIIIIIG Deal.

So go back for seconds on smarts, idiotclown. You need some.

And I'm going to have to disagree with you, Lady Logician. While the charitable giving information is interesting, its as good as comparing a steak to a banana. Both are foods, but certainly different.

This is why I make the case for a near exclusive use of the political contributions. This group of 203 DFL sugardaddies created their little coffee-club group with a purpose. That ad was to influence the political debate of the public policies as they relate to taxing and spending. They are spending their $20,000 in the RedStar to exert political influence on the process.

There is NO better measure that can equal comparison of their existing patterns of political influence than their political contribution history to candidates and organizations. This is a window into their political souls, as people almost always give to exclusively to candidates that support their vision of their community. And an analysis of their spending on candiates presents an obvious picture, even now.

I understand your point Dave, but I wanted to be fair and show that a large number of the folks on my list do indeed put their money where their mouths were. A lot of the charitable giving was to charities that support the causes that they are asking the government to chip in for.

See unlike Fulcrum or AC....I don't assume the worst about people I don't agree with politically. I go with the base assumption that they are good and decent people and I wait for them to (like Fulcrum and AC) show me that I am wrong in assuming that about them.

Ah...now I understand. Our theories, which the research is being done to prove, are slightly different.

HEY!

PEOPLE PEOPLE PEOPLE!!!!

Stay on task here... Remember: Rich Democrats want to spend your money and their contributions to NPR proves it.

Tax and Spend Democrats...

Tax and Spend Democrats...

Tax and Spend Democrats...

That's the message.

Now, get back to work.

Dave said: "Ah...now I understand. Our theories, which the research is being done to prove, are slightly different."

That says it all, Dave. You begin with the conclusion and bend the facts to fit it.

As for your half-witted criticisms, note that Angryclown did not so much as mention Emily's List, which clearly identifies itself as a group for Democratic women. So much for your competence at, you know, reading stuff, much less analyzing political contributions.

Angryclown objected to your foolish assertion that NARAL and *Planned Parenthood* are Democratic groups. I doubt you'll accept any poll data - you've got a point to prove, after all - but here's a link to results from numerous polls showing significant Republican support for abortion rights - not to mention birth control, which is a big part of Planned Parenthood's program.

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

In addition, you completely fail to recognize that people who give to pro-choice, pro-birth control may be *independents*.

There are some interesting results in the data you all have collected. The dude with the shuttered, tax-supported factory asking for a tax hike? Gold, if all that's true. But as Throley recognizes, if you don't analyze the data fairly, you've got zero credibility. Unfortunately, guys like Dave aren't used to being fair.

Well, good luck! I'm sure your little project will impress the other right-wing Minnesota bloggers. Nobody else though.

Dave, thanks for the feedback.

TLL, you posted this:"The DeCosse's are semi-retired artists according to Open Secrets. They are (again) generous patrons of the arts, wildlife and the DFL."

Perhaps i read in a little too far, and I apologize, but the "(again)" seemed sarcastic, and lumped arts, wildlife and the DFL under the same umbrella. Thanks you for clarifying.

Question for you guys, what if the ad said they should raise taxes on those earning more than $200,000 per year since they paid relatively less as a percentage than did other income groups. What would you guys say to that as opposed to this $45,000 threshold?

Dave also said: "There is NO better measure that can equal comparison of their existing patterns of political influence than their political contribution history to candidates and organizations."

A load of crap, of course. Business people often give to incumbents, of whatever party, with an eye toward protecting or advancing their business interests. Giving to a powerful committee chair that oversees your business often says much less about your personal political leanings than it does about who you need to keep on your good side.

But I forget. You've got a theory you need to find some way to prove.

The only load of crap around here is the load you see in the mirror, idiotclown. Go drink some more Kool-aid. As far as your statement goes:

"Business people often give to incumbents, of whatever party, with an eye toward protecting or advancing their business interests."

When these people give ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY to ONE political party, and that is the MINORITY party (ya know, the ones WITHOUT a "powerful committee chair")...that sorta blows away your moronic argument.

By the way, Planned Parenthood (so far) makes up $950 in contributions. NARAL Minnesota is $500. That would reduce the current percentage mix by about 0.0000001%

I tell you what, idiotclown...I'll take them out. That still makes this group contributing $2.4 million out of $2.5 million to DFL candidates and causes. My sources are easy to look up...FEC and Minnesota Campaign Finance. My theory is that people who buy full page newspaper ads to spew liberal nanny-state tripe are hardcore DFL limo-libs...and I'm being proven 100% correct by the data.

Drink your Kool-aid, boobclown.

Dave sputtered: "My theory is that people who buy full page newspaper ads to spew liberal nanny-state tripe are hardcore DFL limo-libs...and I'm being proven 100% correct by the data."

Like I said, I'm sure you'll impress a few other rabid wingnuts who already think the way you do. Nobody else. You wrote the conclusion before you even looked at the data. You have no credibility.

Dave also screwed up: "That still makes this group contributing $2.4 million out of $2.5 million to DFL candidates and causes."

What does that have to do with anything? If your point - I don't mean the one on your head - is that most of these people are Dems, you have to say how many of them are Dems. The fact that a group of people advocating a new tax does not have lots of people who are heavy contributors to the Republicans is hardly stunning news. But you don't say what percentage of the group gives to Dems or is registered Democrat. Clearly you're just picking the numbers that seem, on the surface, to support your case. It's why you have no credibility.

Dave, you are either too partisan or too stupid for this kind of work. Leave it to Thorley. He's much more intelligent than you.

"Perhaps i read in a little too far, and I apologize, but the "(again)" seemed sarcastic, and lumped arts, wildlife and the DFL under the same umbrella. Thanks you for clarifying."

You did indeed read too much into it Fulcrum. One thing that I did notice is that the majority of the people on my list ARE generous patrons of the arts and (to a lesser extent with the exception of the DeCosse's) civic organizations. That they are almost all generous patrons of the DFL is there, but it was not because I was inferring anything. It was simply that I got bored with "and they also donated to x, y, z and the DFL"..... The DeCosse's were probably one of the more generous benefactors of the arts (outside of the Dayton family) that we have in the community - ot at least that I found on my list!

"Question for you guys, what if the ad said they should raise taxes on those earning more than $200,000 per year since they paid relatively less as a percentage than did other income groups. What would you guys say to that as opposed to this $45,000 threshold?"

In today's dollars, the $200k salary is a debatable threshold. I know people who make close to that amount who are small businessmen who are pouring everything back into the business but because they are sole proprietorships (and certain LLC's IIRC) all of the business income counts on their taxes. They may only be "living" on $50k a year but because the business made $200k they get taxed at the $200k limit.

Now if you were to make the bottom end $1m then maybe......

Regardless, I have a problem with someone worth $10's of millions of dollars telling my employer (for example) who makes $200k (again for example) that he is not paying enough in taxes.....

I'm sorry but what exactly is the goal of this little exercise?

Vilifying people who disagree with them politically, what else?

Ahhrrgh. I'm working in mexico and I have not been able to get a post through Blogger.

This is great, I wish I could join in...I'll try again tomorrow.

ps: Hey assclown...is that a turd hanging out of your nose or are you growing a twin head?

"I'm sorry but what exactly is the goal of this little exercise?"

To expose the political agenda of these people. That was a key piece of information the gang of 203 conveniently left out.

Yeah, turns out these people are out to increase taxes!

Great job http://free-answering-machine-message.s4buy.info free answering machine message http://belaire-boca-llc.s4buy.info belaire boca llc http://idaho-job-service.s4buy.info idaho job service http://philadelphia-apartment-search.s4buy.info philadelphia apartment search http://luau-invitation.s4buy.info luau invitation