Cause or coincidence? Politicians who supported bailout got more money from banking interest groups

updated
Politicians who supported the proposed Wall Street bailout package may have had a some financial incentive to do so — they received much more money from banks and securities than those who voted against the package, according to nonprofit website MapLight.org. From perception alone, this is rather disconcerting, since it’s banks and securities, as an industry, who might have been saved by the deal. The old adage “follow the money” is as true as ever, right?

Well, there may be some other benign explanation for the correlation between money from the banking interests and a yes vote. For example, the banking lobby may have chosen to contribute to particular politicians it believes are influential on banking legislation, for example those sitting on finance-related committees. Thus, you could make an argument that those politicians are more likely to be more sophisticated about the banking world, and so when presented with the bailout package, were happy to support it — understanding the serious ramifications that could follow from this crisis if we don’t act.

Who knows? Anyway, the bill’s defeat (205-228) and the related stock market plunge dominated today’s headlines.

Overall, bailout supporters received an average of 54 percent more in campaign contributions from banks and securities than bailout opponents over the last five years. The disparity also held true if you look at individual parties. In fact, the 140 Democrats who voted for the bailout received almost twice as much money from banks and securities as the 95 Democrats who voted against it. (The difference was closer to 50 percent for Republicans.)

As mentioned, none of that proves the representatives let their donors dictate their votes, nor does it invalidate any arguments for and against the deal. Still, looked at skeptically, the positive correlation doesn’t inspire much faith in the democratic process. Because even if you go with the forgiving explanation we gave above, the bill’s failure suggests the dummies in Congress actually wield more power.

MapLight is a Berkeley, Calif.-based nonprofit that tries to show the connection between politicians and special interests, and today’s vote is a great demonstration of how powerful its site is. You can see each politician’s vote and campaign contributions here.

Next Story: Stock market crash confuses Google Finance — has the wrong closing price for nearly every stock!
Previous Story: Send Word Now raises $14M for emergency notifications

Bookmark and Share

Tags:

Photo of Anthony Ha

About the Author, Anthony Ha

Anthony is VentureBeat's assistant editor, as well as its reporter on enterprise technology, cloud computing, and tech policy. Before joining VentureBeat in 2008, Anthony worked at the Hollister Free Lance, where he won awards from the California Newspaper Publishers Association for breaking news coverage and writing. He attended Stanford University and now lives in San Francisco. Reach him at anthony@venturebeat.com. You can also follow Anthony on Twitter.

  • what if that's because the people that don't get money, don't get money because they're ideologues?
  • Matt Marshall
    Surya, good point. We've updated with a nod to that possibility!
  • Matt-- this also goes to this and though you'd find this interesting too: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/swing-di...
  • This is a particularly good demonstration of public choice theory. Mancur Olson was noticing this stuff 40 years ago, and Arthur F. Bentley 100 years ago.

    But some people don't believe in theory until they see the evidence themselves. Congrats to Maplight for such a powerful demonstration of the usefulness of their technology.
  • S.t
    http://www.nypost.com/seven/09292008/postopinio...

    "WHAT exactly does a "community organizer" do? Barack Obama's rise has left many Americans asking themselves that question. Here's a big part of the answer: Community organizers intimidate banks into making high-risk loans to customers with poor credit."

    (I was going to link a video from YouTube, but the Lefties yanked it)
  • S.t
    AH -- who got big money from Fannie & Freddie?

    & who asked the head of Fannie Mae to chose his VP for him?

    & can you pen a post on the liberal lending standards ushered in by Obama's ACORN? & why giving people loans based on skin color instead of credit strength was a bad idea?
  • You'd probably make your points more effectively if you actually laid out your argument and linked to supporting evidence. Not that VentureBeat is really the best place to have a discussion about Fannie and Freddie.

    On your last point, I did actually write about a similar-but-not-identical issue at my old gig: http://www.hollisterfreelance.com/news/contentv...
  • S.t