United States Congress – District 3

run for presidental candidate? Does he remain a senator and still be able to do his duties so does he have to drop from the senate? Is another senator hired through congress or do the citizens of that state have to vote again for a new senate?

I heard that Hillary Clinton might run for the Democratic presidental candidate and was wondering how she could do that and be a senator. Thanks for your answers!

Also – when John Kerry didn’t win the presidentail seat, did he go back to being a senator? or what did he do then?

Senators serve six-year terms. John Kerry’s last re-election to the Senate was in 2002, so he was still in mid-term when he ran for President 2 years ago. Yes, he’s still in the Senate. Most Senators who ran for President, while in the middle of their term, and lost remained in the Senate.

But Kerry’s running mate, John Edwards of North Carolina, was a Senator who had been elected in 1998, so his 6-year term was ending when he ran for the ticket in 2004. Per the law of North Carolina, he could not run for re-election to the Senate while also simultaneously running on the national ticket. So Edwards is no longer in the Senate.

The law is not the same in all states. A couple of states in which a candidate can both run on the Presidential ticket and run for U.S. Senate in the very same election are Connecticut and Texas. Six years ago, Joe Lieberman ran for re-election to the Senate at the same time he was Al Gore’s running-mate. Obviously, Lieberman won re-election to the Senate, but did not win the national election. In the past, two Senators who represented Texas ran both for re-election to the Senate and also were running-mates on the national ticket at the same time: Lyndon B. Johnson in 1960 and Lloyd Bentsen in 1988.

By mentioning Johnson, I can now segue into another one of your questions. When Johnson was re-elected to the Senate and elected Vice President at the same time in 1960, he obviously had to resign from the Senate before he was sworn in as Veep. That meant his seat was then vacant.

Anytime vacancies occur in a seat for the U.S. Senate, how the vacancy gets filled depends on the law of the state. There is no national law directing the subject. In most states, the Governor has the power to appoint a new Senator to fill the vacancy. And if the vacancy occurred with only 2 years left in the term or less, then that appointee will serve the remainder of that term. Oftentimes, the vacancy occurs with more than 2 years left, in which case the state will schedule a special election so that the voters can determine who will serve the remainder of the term.

However, in some states the Governor does not have the power to appoint anyone to fill a vacancy. In those states the seat will simply remain vacant until a special election is held. Oklahoma and Oregon are two examples of that. In 1995, Republican Senator Bob Packwood resigned in mid-term with 3 1/2 years left of his term. His seat remained vacant for a few months while the legislature authorized a special election to be held. When Ron Wyden won that special election, he then held the seat for the remaining 3 years of the term originally begun by Packwood.

Home > Congress > Soros-linked group hit with huge fine
Soros-linked group hit with huge fine

By: Kenneth P. Vogel
Aug 29, 2007 02:19 PM EST
Updated: August 29, 2007 02:17 PM EST

SAVE
Digg
del.icio.us
Technorati
reddit
SHARE
COMMENT
PRINT
EMAIL
RECOMMEND

The Federal Election Commission has fined one of the last cycle’s biggest liberal political action committees $775,000 for using unregulated soft money to boost John Kerry and other Democratic candidates during the 2004 elections.

America Coming Together (ACT) raised $137 million for its get-out-the-vote effort in 2004, but the FEC found most of that cash came through contributions that violated federal limits.

The group’s big donors included George Soros, Progressive Corp. chairman Peter Lewis and the Service Employees International Union.

The settlement, which the FEC approved unanimously, is the third largest enforcement penalty in the commission’s 33-year history.

ACT, which ceased operations in 2005, was formed in late 2003 and rapidly deployed an enormous organization to do the retail-level grunt work of politics.

It opened more than 90 offices in 17 states from which it mobilized an army of more than 25,000 paid canvassers and volunteers to knock on doors, stuff envelopes and make phone calls urging voters to defeat President Bush and support Democratic or “progressive” candidates including Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate.

The FEC dismissed allegations that that Kerry’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee violated campaign laws by coordinating with ACT or accepting excessive contributions from the group.

ACT was among a new breed of political committee, known as 527 groups, that stretched campaign finance rules on their way to shaping the 2004 elections.

Operatives used the 527s, named for the section of the IRS code under which they were registered, to spend money on politics outside the FEC’s purview.

But the groups have largely faded from the political landscape as the FEC has sought to rein them in. Late last year, commissioners handed down a total of $630,000 in penalties to three top 527s: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, MoveOn.org and the League of Conservation Voters, and there are more complaints pending.

But the heads of two of the non-profit campaign finance reform groups behind many of the complaints, including the one that led to the ACT penalty, say it’s all too little, too late.

“This action comes more than three years after our FEC complaints were filed and nearly three years after the 2004 presidential election was held,” read a statement from Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, and Gerry Hebert, executive director of the Campaign Legal Center.

Plus, they argued, the fine “represents only a tiny fraction” of the amount ACT spent illegally on the 2004 elections.

Wertheimer also is involved in a lawsuit to compel the FEC to pass a set of comprehensive rules regulating 527s, without which he said the groups are likely to reemerge in the 2008 campaign.
Elli.
You are wrong on all counts. The swft boats were willing to debate and Kerry who by the way served him self in Nam would not as he is the lier.

Ask why if it were not true have they not been sued. Because if they are sued the swift boats will win and you know this also.

One more thing you wish to shut others up and but not your own lies.
Great for the Fed. Elec. Comm. Also Hillary is next with the S.F. case.

that was a long damn question!!

Unfortunately the 575k is a drop in the bucket to this psycho billionaire, and the damage from the lies is already done. But he can lie, cheat, steal, slander and it’s okay because he’s a lib and never professed to be for higher standards, so it’s okay that he keeps his standards as low and illegal as he wants to

Receiving more Thumbs UP than Obama, on the Secular Progressive Chat Forum – Yahoo Answers. These must be the same Polls that showed John Kerry winning the Election in 2004. Now a more reliable Poll, which is the most recent Gallup Poll, showed President Bush with only a 24% approval rating. Bad Right – Not so quick, this very same Poll also incorporated the same methodology of statistical sampling that has your Democrat Controlled Congress with an unbelievable Piss Poor Rating only 12%. Your guy Obama is part of this Piss Poor performance rating of 12%. In other words, 88% of Americans are Pissed OFF at the Incompetent Wanna Be Rapper – OBAMA.

Ain’t it the truth.Very good question & info.He might consider being a rapper after he loses.As long as someone else writes the words,he can spew ‘em.Then i could get a dvd of it & get that annoying cat down the street.

This has been said as to the reason most Democrats in Congress & in the Senate don’t want the Oil Companies to stop drilling on the leased land they have- they do want them to find oil but since they have been drilling up dry holes they just want them to continue exploring for it wasting TIME so they make a fat profit!
Don’t we the tax payers pay for this wasted explortion? When they could be drilling where we KNOW the oil is.?
Anyone have info on how many exactly own these shares, I know John Kerry does!
Yes they have been drilling on the leased 68 million acres! They said so! Of course the liberal TV is not gonna tell you that! Try watching the fair and balanced News FOX!

Taxpayers aren’t paying for exploration.

Let’s listen to Nancy Pelosi talking about the situation in Turkey. She was on this week with Stephanopoulos yesterday. He said to her, "If the president or Secretary Gates or the chairman of Joint Chiefs called you and said they’re just certain that this is going to put our military at risk, is it still worth going forward with your resolution?"

“PELOSI: The president hasn’t called me on it, so that’s hypothetical. Some of the things that are harmful to our troops relate to values: Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, torture, all of those issues about who we are as a country. And I think that our troops are well served when we declare who we are as a country and increase the respect that people have for us as a nation.”

I know it doesn’t sound like it, but I am livid. This is idiocy. This insults the intelligence of anybody who heard this exchange. Folks, they’ve made this personal now, and I frankly am fed up with these people. I am at my wits’ end with these people, what they have tried to do to destroy the morale of the troops, to destroy the mission itself. They run around saying, "We support the troops. We don’t support the mission." The troops have one concern, and that’s the mission. If you don’t support the mission, you don’t support them and they have been trying, Pelosi and her crew, to undermine the troops since we went into Iraq. It just is beyond the pale that they said, "Well, no, this is going to help the troops, saying that we don’t support genocide in Turkey a hundred years ago. This will support the troops. We have to do right by these things: Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, torture, all of those issues about who we are as a country." This makes me want to spit!

This is just offensive as it can be, especially coming from these people who have done everything they can [to undermine our mission.] Why do you think we have a rotten image in the world, if we do? My friends, I don’t agree that our image is rotten, but they certainly want it to be, and they want it to be blamed on Bush. But who the hell, in public for four years, has been running around ripping the hell out of this country? Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Kerry, you name it, John Murtha, it doesn’t matter. Jay Rockefeller. Take your pick. Ted Kennedy. We’ve had Bill Clinton; we’ve had Algore; we’ve had Jimmy Carter, all Democrats traveling the world ripping this country to shreds; saying that it’s immoral; saying that our president is an idiot and agreeing with socialists all over the world that George Bush is an idiot, a clown, or whatever. It’s just unseemly.

We were talking about this at lunch yesterday. I just have to think that there are far more many Americans who feel the same way I do and you do about this than any of us ever know. They’re just not asked about it. The popular perception in the Drive-By Media is that every American agrees with Democrats on everything. But this is just unseemly. There are Americans who are fed up with hearing their country run down day in and day out for the last four years, our troops run down, criticized, impugned, day in and day out, for the last four years. To have what the Democrats say repeated on the nightly newscasts, on the cable networks, all over the newspapers and so forth, it is unseemly. Now, to offer this resolution, the third of its kind, two previously have already passed, to anger Turkey, the primary supply line for troops, and then to say, "No, this is about our morality. This is about who we are as a country." Yeah, where were you during the Rwandan genocide? What are you doing besides flapping your gums over what’s going on in Darfur?

The enemies of this country seem to be the allies of the United States Democrats. It’s just stunning. It’s classless, it’s unseemly, and to me, folks, it is reprehensible. This answer that she gives here, "Well, the president hasn’t called me." You shouldn’t need a phone call from the president to understand what you’re doing. She doesn’t need a phone call. She knows exactly what she’s doing. They all do on the Democrat side of this, know exactly what they’re doing. Some of the things are harmful to our troops. Does she really believe that the rumors, the lies, the smears of US soldiers at Guantanamo, at Club Gitmo, are actually hurting our troops in Iraq? What’s hurting our troops in Iraq is Democrats and their judges, as in the first hour of this program. A soldier from Queens kidnapped in a surprise attack by Al-Qaeda in the triangle of death. We are not allowed to get wiretaps on the phones in the communications, the kidnappers are using for ten hours, because the lawyers have to approve the request for a warrant, in the middle of a war! Not in the middle of street crime; in the middle of a war!

The Democrats want to keep those restrictions in place. They are trying to hand victory to the enemy. They are failing, because Al-Qaeda is on the run. There are even more stories in the stack today that I have coming up about how it’s getting really, really tough to deny here that things are improving in Iraq. In fact, here it is. It’s an editorial in the Washington Post, of all places, from yesterday. "The evidence of a drop in violence in Iraq is becoming hard to dispute. But meanwhile, some seemingly important facts about the main subject of discussion last month — whether there has been a decrease in violence in Iraq — have gotten relatively little attention." I wonder why? Because that doesn’t fit the template, does it? Good news in Iraq does not. We had the audio sound bites from those two journalists last week, (paraphrasing) "We can’t report good news, why, one month doesn’t make a trend. Besides, how do we verify these numbers? We can’t be sure these numbers are accurate." Yet the death toll goes up, "Oh, the numbers have no question about them, they’re totally accurate, and that of course is news." It’s maddening.

"A congressional study and several news stories in September questioned reports by the U.S. military that casualties were down. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), challenging the testimony of Gen. David H. Petraeus, asserted that "civilian deaths have risen" during this year’s surge of American forces. A month later, there isn’t much room for such debate, at least about the latest figures," and they go on cite how they have plummeted. "Nevertheless, it’s looking more and more as though those in and outside of Congress who last month were assailing Gen. Petraeus’s credibility and insisting that there was no letup in Iraq’s bloodshed were — to put it simply — wrong." This is in the Washington Post yesterday. The Democrats want to screw this up because, as I, El Rushbo, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-everything Maha Rushie, have been warning you about for the past six months, the last thing the Democrats can afford is editorials like that stick and be spread throughout the Drive-By Media. The last thing they can afford is the perception by the American people that we are winning and that vector is at hand. Politically that cooks their goose; politically that finishes them, because they’ve already got us losing. They’re fundraising on it; they’re running for office on it. The last thing they want is victory. And Mrs. Pelosi runs around and says this gobbledygook to Stephanopoulos. She ought to be ashamed.

That is a rant. I have read longer rants, but, dude, you got your point across in the first paragraph. All reading the rest did was hammer that point home and let me know how upset you are the Pelosi is a hypocrite.

I suggest you write your congressperson and ask them to submit a resolution condemning the Democratic party for their past ethnic atrocities.

If the Dems can blast a nation that did not exist at the time of the genocide and who rebelled against the genocidal and Empirical government to form a new nation with a democratic government when these things occurred almost a hundred years ago then Dems should be willing to pass a resolution condemning the Democratic party for their ethnic atrocities as little as sixty years ago.

…then these same people conveniently changed their tune when it was election time.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." Ex-President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program." Ex-President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
LOLOL it never fails, btw Im not a bush supporter, and think obama is bush on steroids……now lets get some substantial, legimate arguments instead of the usual playing of the victim role, or we were lied to BS, can you all not take things with a grain of salt and decipher things for yourselves?

Yup, you got that right. Yes, and most of the Dem Senators voted to go to war in Iraq, based on the information they received. None of us have ever been privy to that intelligence, but we can find out how they voted.
I don’t pay too much attention to what they say, but rather to what they do. They tend to change positions in the direction that the political wind is blowing that day.

…then these same people conveniently changed their tune when it was election time.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." Ex-President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program." Ex-President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
LOLOL it never fails, btw Im not a bush supporter, and think obama is bush on steroids……now lets get some substantial, legimate arguments instead of the usual playing of the victim role, or we were lied to BS, can you all not take things with a grain of salt and decipher things for yourselves?

Yup, you got that right. Yes, and most of the Dem Senators voted to go to war in Iraq, based on the information they received. None of us have ever been privy to that intelligence, but we can find out how they voted.
I don’t pay too much attention to what they say, but rather to what they do. They tend to change positions in the direction that the political wind is blowing that day.

When John Kerry pointed out that Iraq war will cost two hundred billion dollar while campaigning for presidency, the right wingers said he was over estimated. Now as we knew three years later, the cost so far is more than $500 billion and over all estimation from today is about $3 trillion cost over the long run ( sick, cripple, and dying veterans cost, their economy etc…. All these should not happen in the first place if congress(including Hillary Clinton, my Senator Maria Cantwell, and Adam Smith) didn’t give him the blank check go to Iraq War. They said Bush will used it wisely. Hah! Hah, it was laughable. They gave him an inch, but Bush took more than a yard. Then last year he asked for more money for the SURGE, spineless congress caved in again. Today he asks for another $102 billion(how he get 02 billion from? Why not just say 150 or 200 billion?), again for the SUPER SURGE(continue). Will Congress give him this another yard at this time? I hope not.
My prediction almost come true, only $.5 trillion to go though. I predicted (at the beginning of Bush’s Presidency) that by the end of Bush term(s) we will have Ten Trillion Dollar Deficit. I hope is not over though, so my prediction would be wrong. I swear to God I really predicted this.

Hello bucktoui,

Well if you really knew how bad it was you would freak out big time.

The year Bush took office the national debt was about $2.6 TRILLION dollars. The economic policies of President Clinton had just brought the US to the point of beginning to pay back that debt and decrease the yearly interest paid on that debt.

Seven and a half years later—-

The national debt is NINE TRILLION FOUR HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS.

This is disgraceful. The last such run up of the national debt was when Reagan added just a little over a trillion dollars to the debt in his eight years.

Republicans are not good for the country.

What do we do about it???? Hope that we can some how unseat the current administration this fall and keep take full control of the congress BOTH houses, and put some restraint back into our system.

Oh and by the way, you better hunker down for the long haul, high unemployment, and even worse high inflation over the next ten years or so.

Health Insurers Owe Policyholders, But Pay Congress Instead
In total, health insurance companies’ PACs and employees have given 25 members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation $3.3 million in campaign contributions with 53 percent of that going to Democrats.

At the top of that list is committee member Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who has collected $680,200 over time for his candidate committee and leadership PAC from the companies. But the industry under scrutiny has also helped pay for the campaigns of committee chair Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), who has collected $141,000,

President Obama received $1.3 million from the industry in the 2008 election cycle (and $1.4 million if you include his Senate fundraising). Among health insurers, Blue Cross/Blue Shield and AFLAC have made the greatest contributions to current members of Congress over time at $7 million and $5.7 million, respectively.

For a list of all members of the 111th Congress (plus Obama) who have received money for their candidate committees or leadership PACs from the health insurance industry’s PACs and employees*, click here:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/03/health-insurers-owe-policyhold.html

It is cheaper for insurance companies to bribe Congress than to pay legitimate claims.

Health Insurers Owe Policyholders, But Pay Congress Instead
In total, health insurance companies’ PACs and employees have given 25 members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation $3.3 million in campaign contributions with 53 percent of that going to Democrats.

At the top of that list is committee member Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who has collected $680,200 over time for his candidate committee and leadership PAC from the companies. But the industry under scrutiny has also helped pay for the campaigns of committee chair Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), who has collected $141,000,

President Obama received $1.3 million from the industry in the 2008 election cycle (and $1.4 million if you include his Senate fundraising). Among health insurers, Blue Cross/Blue Shield and AFLAC have made the greatest contributions to current members of Congress over time at $7 million and $5.7 million, respectively.

For a list of all members of the 111th Congress (plus Obama) who have received money for their candidate committees or leadership PACs from the health insurance industry’s PACs and employees*, click here:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/03/health-insurers-owe-policyhold.html

It is cheaper for insurance companies to bribe Congress than to pay legitimate claims.