World Video | Defence | Foreign Affairs | Natural Events | Trade | NZ in World News | NZ National News Video | NZ Regional News | Search


Dems Voting Yes On Bailout Got 2x More From Banks

For Immediate Release:
September 29, 2008


Dems voting 'Yes' received twice as much as Dems voting 'No'

BERKELEY, CA—Members of the U.S. House of Representatives today voted against a $700 billion financial system bailout. has found that, over the past five years, banks and securities firms gave an average of $231,877 in campaign contributions to each Representative voting in favor of the bailout, compared with an average of $150,982 to each Representative voting against the bailout--54 percent more money given to those who voted Yes. 205 Representatives voted Yes and 228 voted No, with 1 Not Voting.

House Democrats split their votes on this bill, 140 voting Yes and 95 voting No. Democrats voting Yes received an average of $212,700 each, about twice as much as those voting No, $107,993.

House Republicans also split their votes on this bill, 65 voting Yes and 133 voting No (and 1 not voting). Republicans voting Yes received an average of $273,181 each, 50% more than those voting No, $181,688.

“Profit-driven companies wouldn't be making campaign contributions if it didn't buy them influence or access," said Daniel Newman,'s executive director. “Votes in Congress align with the river of money that flows through our political system.”

Votes on H.R. 3997, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008

Average amount banks and securities firms gave to U.S. House Members:

/ / Average amount given to each legislator voting this way
House Members (All) / voted Yes / $231,877
/ voted No / $150,982
House Democrats / voted Yes / $212,700
/ voted No / $107,993
House Republicans / voted Yes / $273,181
/ voted No / $181,688

To view how each legislator voted:

Methodology:'s analysis used data from the Center for Reponsive Politics ( and included campaign funds given from January 2003 through August 2008 by these industries: banks (including commercial banks, savings & loans, and investment banks), credit unions, finance companies, stock exchanges, venture capital and private equity firms, hedge funds, and securities and commodities brokers and firms. Data includes both PAC and individual contributions. We used Congressional voting records from the U.S. House website, via

Financial Services Sector - Contribution History

The financial services sector has contributed more to candidates for Congress, Presidential candidates, and political parties than any other sector, totaling $339,649,585 from 2007-present.

The sector has also contributed heavily to both John McCain and Barack Obama’s Presidential campaigns in 2007-2008: $22,108,926 to Sen. McCain and $24,860,257 to Sen. Obama.

The financial services sector has been a top campaign contributor for years, donating more than $2 billion to Federal candidates from 1989 through today.

Note: The financial services sector referenced on includes more industries than just the banking and securities industries examined in this vote correlation report.

Looking Back: Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 (Gramm-Leach-Bliley)

In 1999 Congress passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill, with bipartisan support, allowing the nation's largest banks to get even larger and take risks that had been prohibited since the Great Depression. A recent CRP analysis found that legislators who voted for this act received twice as much from the financial, insurance and real estate sectors as those who voted against it. Citigroup was the Act’s most aggressive supporter.'s research department reveals how contributions correlate with legislation so that citizens have key information needed to draw their own conclusions about how campaign contributions affect policy. Campaign contributions are only one factor affecting legislator behavior. The correlations we highlight between industry and union giving and legislative outcomes do not show that one caused the other, and we do not make this claim. We do make the claim, however, that campaign contributions bias our legislative system. Simply put, candidates who take positions contrary to industry interests are unlikely to receive industry funds and thus have fewer resources for their election campaigns than those whose votes favor industry interests.

About is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501(c)(3) organization based in Berkeley, California. Its search engine at illuminates the connection between Money And Politics (MAP) via a database of campaign contributions and legislative outcomes. Data sources include:; Center for Responsive Politics (; Federal Election Commission (FEC); and National Institute on Money in State Politics (NIMSP). Support and opposition data is obtained through testimony at public hearings, proprietary news databases and public statements on the websites of trade associations and other groups. To learn more visit:


© Scoop Media

World Headlines


Werewolf: Gordon Campbell On North Korea, Neo-Nazism, And Milo

With a bit of luck the planet won’t be devastated by nuclear war in the next few days. US President Donald Trump will have begun to fixate on some other way to gratify his self-esteem – maybe by invading Venezuela or starting a war with Iran. More>>

Victory Declared: New Stabilisation Funding From NZ As Mosul Is Retaken

New Zealand has congratulated the Iraqi government on the successful liberation of Mosul from ISIS after a long and hard-fought campaign. More>>

Gordon Campbell: On The Current US Moves Against North Korea

If Martians visited early last week, they’d probably be scratching their heads as to why North Korea was being treated as a potential trigger for global conflict... More>>


Gordon Campbell: On The Lessons From Corbyn’s Campaign

Leaving partisan politics aside – and ignoring Jeremy Corbyn’s sensational election campaign for a moment – it has to be said that Britain is now really up shit creek... More>>


Another US Court: Fourth Circuit Rules Muslim Ban Discriminatory

ACLU: Step by step, point by point, the court laid out what has been clear from the start: The president promised to ban Muslims from the United States, and his executive orders are an attempt to do just that. More>>


  • Pacific.Scoop
  • Cafe Pacific
  • PMC