Republican-only Corporate Contributors

From, here's a list of those corporations [PAC'S] that exclusively, or nearly so(90-100%), support only the Republican Party over the Democratic Party in financial contributions:Phillips Int'l. (100%), Cooper Industries (100%), Flowers Industries (100%), Harris Corp. (98%), Illinois Toolworks (97%), Outback Steakhouse (96%), ExxonMobil (96%), National City Corp. (95%), Wendy's Int' l. (93%), Anadarko Petroleum (92%), Timken Corp. (91%), Halliburton (91%), Meadwestvaco Corp (90%), Darden Restaurants Inc. (90%), Branch Banking & Trust Co (90%), and Int'l Paper (90%).Here's a few more in the 80-90% range:


See, if we had a Democratic Party leadership with some steel for action to change the status quo, they'd come out with a PR asking Democratic Party voters to stop going to Wendy's if they are going to only contribute to Republicans. Instead, we get the likes that are grateful for the 7% in crumbs, which is good enough to buy off their silence.

Overall, the list of Corporations that give more than 50% of their contributions to the Republican Party numbers 254. On the Democratic side? There is only one Corp. that gives above 60% to the Democratic Party, CableVisions Systems at 78%, and 22 others in the 50-59% range. It's a 10:1 ratio in the number of corporations favoring Republicans over Democrats, but for the actual money, it's much higher, 25:1 or greater.

The GOP has the corporations in their pockets writing the laws. The only way the Democratic Party can possibly counter is through having leaders that recognize the power of a million individuals nationwide being a part of a netroots/grassroots effort to reform the political system.

Tags: Republicans (all tags)



melio, Gilbert F Dr.
4/24/2003 $350.00

Guy hasn't been at Apple since Jobs canned him in '98.

If this is as accurate as they are they are worthless.

by 16 2004-11-24 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: ogwash
If there is not a list that all Democrats can refer to when making purchases or spending decisions regarding the above corporations and their ilk, please help me create one.  I have resources.

If there is such a list, please refer me to it.

Otherwise, please write me to discuss.  chicago60606(at)

by austral 2004-11-25 01:10PM | 0 recs
Re: ogwash
Well, according to, which is run by the Center for Responsive Politics. This list is quite accurate. Here's a selection of the listed Corp. Pacs with some of the candidate highlights (these are figures filed as of 10/24/04)

Phillips Int. 100%
   Tom Coburn $5000

Cooper Ind. 100%
    Pete Coors $5000
    Mel Martinez $5000

Flowers 100%
    Tom Coburn $5000
     GWB  $5000 (none to Kerry)

Harris 98%
    Mel Martinez $5000
    GWB  $5000

Outback 97%
    Jim Bunning $10000
    Pete Coors $10000
    Katherine Harris $5000

Wendy's  90%

Darden 90%

   Jim Bunning $5000
   Tom DeLay  $7675
    Katherine Harris  $5000

Home Depot 81%
   Jim Bunning $5000
    Pete Coors $5000
    Tom Delay   $5000
    Istook $2000

Goodyear 89%
     Tom Coburn $5000
      Tom DeLay  $5000
      Istook  $5000

Ford Motor  85%
     Jim Bunning $10000
     Istook $5000
     GWB $5000 (none to Kerry)

Cigna 84%
    Jim Bunning $7500  
    Rick Santorum  $5000
    Tom DeLay $7000
     Katherine Harris  $2500


by brookeb 2004-11-26 02:37PM | 0 recs
I do not get your argument

I do not get this. Is not Ben and Jerry's only contributing to DNC? Is not Susan S. and her weak husband Tim R. from Hollywood only contributing to DNC?

I mean let us play fair, shall we? If a redneck can contribute to GOP, then why not a weirdo contribute to to DNC?

Ali Karim Bey
Political Investigator and Analyst
& Pizza Delivery (Freelance)

by alikarimbey 2004-11-24 04:54PM | 0 recs
Re: I do not get your argument
Yeah, I'm almost 100% sure that Ben & Jerry's donates exclusively to Democrats.  Ben Cohen has also been outspoken proponent of liberal values.
by fwiffo 2004-11-24 06:40PM | 0 recs
Re: I do not get your argument
I added one word that might clear it up for you: PAC'S
by Jerome Armstrong 2004-11-25 02:06AM | 0 recs
Re: I do not get your argument
PACs or no, the numbers at that site are not reliable.

Apple doesn't have a GOP contributing PAC, and they're counting contributions made by Dr. Gil Amelio; a person who hasn't been associated with Apple since 1998 (and points to the Democratic/liberal culture at Apple in his book about his time there.)

Indeed, if you search Jobs, Steve at the FEC site you'll get a picture of where Apple puts money... And you should not Jobs was an adviser to John Kerry AND Al Gore is on Apple's board of directors.

I'm not making a point about Apple...  Apple happens to be a company I know.  If I can't trust their numbers for what I know, how am I to trust them for what I don't know?

Obviously corporations give disproportionally to the GOP; that point is solid.  The numbers from the site you've linked to are not solid.

by 16 2004-11-25 11:45AM | 0 recs
I hate to burst your bubble....
... but Ben & Jerry's is no longer a separate company. Ben & Jerry sold the name to Unilever some time ago.

The sales agreement forces Unilever to funnel some of Ben & Jerry's corporate profits to left-leaning groups, including the Ruckus Society (!), but it's obviously not binding on individual contributions. (All political contributions actually come from individuals - usually executives - associated with the company, as contributions from corporations themselves have been illegal for about a century.)

by Mathwiz 2004-11-26 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: I do not get your argument
For your consideration, according to (run by the Center for Responsive Politics) the top PACs who gave more than 75% of their donations to Dems are (figures filed 10/24/04):

Laborers Union
Assn. of Trial Lawyers
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
United Auto Workers
Machinist & Aerospace Workers
American Federation of Teachers
Service Employees Int. Union
Carpenters and Joiners Union
American Fed. of State, County & Munic. Workers
Communication Workers of America
United Food Workers

A very different picture, no?

by brookeb 2004-11-28 12:00PM | 0 recs
Lawdy Jeezuz!
Let's make this list exceedingly public and get this into our Capitol Hill talking points, Senate and House.

"Shakedown" Tom DeLay must remnain in our sites.

by Pachacutec 2004-11-24 05:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Lawdy Jeezuz!
Agreed.  Great work on this list--we should start boycotting companies until they start contributing to both sides.  7% isn't enough to buy MY silence.
by Philosopher 2004-11-25 09:11AM | 0 recs
Good luck
As long as Republicans have the White House and a strong majority in both houses of Congress, corporate PACs are going to give more to them.  They know which side their bread is buttered on.  If they don't, some Republican leaders will remind them.

For example, check out today's article in Capitol Hill newspaper The Hill, "Big insurer lost its bet on the Dems." It talks about how Blue Cross's PAC gave more to Democratic candidates this cycle for the first time in 10 years.  Said the article:

"The move has gotten the attention of key GOP officials, who vow to scrutinize and highlight the group's political leanings.

"A source in the healthcare industry suggested Blue Cross may pay a political price for its strategy in the wake of Republican triumphs on Election Day."

by Horq 2004-11-24 05:18PM | 0 recs
This explains the grilled diver sea scallops.

Back to the main point, the Dem's do have their own versions of large corporate sponsors. Are you willing to ditch them or minimize their impact?

by TheLonewackoBlog 2004-11-24 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Wendy's
To make that more clearer, most of the Dem's versions of large corporate sponsors are not corporations but teacher's unions, putative 501 c 3's etc. etc.
by TheLonewackoBlog 2004-11-24 05:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Wendy's
Boycotting these organizations is a matter of free choice. That's one reason my money is no longer at Merrill Lynch, for example. If you don't like the priorities of the teacher's unions, you're free to move your kids to a private school.
by EvanstonDem 2004-11-25 07:24AM | 0 recs
Not 501(c)3's
501(c)3's (charity and educational groups) cannot be involved in political campaigns, period. You're probably thinking of 501(c)4's (advocacy groups) and/or 501(c)6's (labor organizations).

Oh and <grammar Nazi>"more clearer?" Doesn't "clearer" pretty much cover it?</grammar Nazi>

by Mathwiz 2004-11-26 12:42PM | 0 recs
Corporate mandated PACs
They are pernacious. Officers in a corporations are forced to give to the Fascist Party PAC if they are to receive promotions, stock options, or other conditions which advance their careers. In addition to the PAC fund, officers will be forced to attend Fascist $1,000 plate dinners, or host or sponsor other fundraising events, hiding these expenses either in their own personal deductions, or in the corporate travel and entertainment budget. The total corporate-mandated contribution to the Fascist Party, therefore, greatly exceeds even the bloated figures reported above.

I reported in a recent diary, "CEOs Go Xmas Shopping" that leaders from Tyco, Pepsi and other megacorps were recently featured in a forum on CSPAN-2, and they disparaged everyone in the business community who gave a single red cent to the DNP.

The perception exists throughout the business world, and especially in financial services, that the Fascist Party is the champion of sound business practices. This position is largely fabricated through the biased reporting of the Wall Street Journal, the National Enquirer of the economy. Sound business practices for most people will require a fair playing field for entrepreneurs, and employees of all stripes. Right now, American corporate culture crushes creativity and in the iron fist of monopolization its only avenue of profit is grown through closed door meetings with Fascist Party policymakers.

(PS: Please stop calling the enemy by any other name than their true party allegiance. They stopped being Republicans a long time ago.)

by JHGrimson 2004-11-24 07:50PM | 0 recs
I noticed Darden Restaurants on the list (at the 90% level). They are the parent company of Olive Garden, Red Lobster, Bahama Breeze and Smokey Bones restaurants. I have never seen the last two but the first two are all over the place in my neck of the woods in Southern California. Outback Steakhouse (at 96%) also caught my eye.

I heartily agree with Jerome's call for a boycott of companies that exclusively give (90+ percent of) their corporate contributions to Republicans.

I'm sure if we popularized this message:

Don't Eat at Olive Garden,  Red Lobster or Outback Steakhouse, They Overwhelmingly Support Republicans!! Financially

I'm sure a significant fraction of the 48.13% of the electorate who voted to fire George Bush and who feel powerless about the next four years could feel empowered by this consumer action.

Maybe other people can research what the heck Coopers Industries, Flowers Industries and Timken Corporation make or do.

by MadProfessah 2004-11-24 07:52PM | 0 recs
is on the case:

by pammo 2004-11-24 08:18PM | 0 recs
Boycott the Media
We need to start a nationwide boycott of the conservative, irresponsible media.  If they lose tens of millions of viewers, some TV producer will realize a responsible or liberal news program would get great ratings.  I suggest we watch only

The Daily Show

We're about half the country, so why don't half the news programs pander to us?!

by Ryan 2004-11-24 09:22PM | 0 recs
This is so fucked up...
...I'm driving a stupid Ford Taurus right now, and Olive Garden is where I met the girl I had my son with, and is - no was - one of my favorite restraunts. Pieces of #@#%.

Political Physics
by cgilbert01 2004-11-24 09:35PM | 0 recs
Re: This is so fucked up...
Yea, and if I posted the entire list of the 254 Corporate PAC's favoring Republicans, you'd find even more...  gives me a reason to ditch Sprint.
by Jerome Armstrong 2004-11-25 02:09AM | 0 recs
Economic boycott; economic strength
I agree almost entirely.  Almost?  Well, I'd dispute who has who in whose pockets!

Of course, economic boycott is a great strategy.  But it doesn't replace the necessity for a clear and broadly recognized platform -- a series of policies and initiatives which are new and inspiring and very  sound economically.  

We've got the Republicans by the cj's when it comes to economic policies and fiscal responsibility -- so why don't voters recognize that?  Why do they (and we, I think) continue to believe that a strong social safety net is necessarily bad for the economy?  On the contrary!

by Bean 2004-11-25 04:08AM | 0 recs
Wrong direction
We should not be trying to solicite money from these corporations.   Let the right wing have them!   We do not want them!  But we should use them.   The Dems must scream, shout, yell and do whatever they can for the next four years to finally convince this ignorant country that the right wing will not look out for the people, they will only look out for their money.   A list like this just prooves that the money the righties love so much is corporate, not from the citizens.   Then lets air out the dems list of money with only a few corporate donors and mostly citiznes.   Yes we need money too, but we will sell ourselves to the people while the righties sell themselves to corporate "america".   Talk about this on every show every time we are on! Over and over and over, and finally the people will get the point.  The point is that while we have no real strict finance reform, all politicians are whores.   But the righties are the whores of corporations while the dems are the whores of the citizens.    
by Njal 2004-11-25 05:14AM | 0 recs
The Power of the Wallet - Your Wallet!
"......the power of a million individuals nationwide being a part of a netroots/grassroots effort to reform the political system."

Swell! And when this pseudo-grassroots mob actually stops pulling in at Wendy's in their Ford Explorers, corporations will begin to listen.
No doubt about it. Europeans have been channeling their spending for political reasons for a long time now. And European corporations understand the power of losing say 2-3% marketshare. What corporations typically pay in advertising budgets to claw out that sort of marketshare is several times over the amount of their political contributions.

Hence European companies seldom try to buy an election. Those that try usually pay for their effort at the cash register.

It's too bad that American progressives haven't thought to fell the corporate contribution tree in this manner.

by Anno1959 2004-11-25 06:28AM | 0 recs
Re: The Power of the Wallet - Your Wallet!
I've been wondering if a boycott this broad could possibly be effective. It doesn't surprise me that the Brits are way ahead of us on this. Can you point me in the general direction of some articles or history on the British experience with this problem?
by Gary Boatwright 2004-11-25 01:58PM | 0 recs
Too much power
There was a time, not so long ago, when corporations didn't have equality in the law with persons.  I think we need to roll back their power, don't you?
by Bean 2004-11-25 07:04AM | 0 recs
re: roll back power
We definately need to roll back corporate power "bean." It's a sad thing that in this day and age (especially in america) corporations can not be trusted, and they have acquired way too much power.
by WhenInTheCourse 2004-11-25 11:11AM | 0 recs
We don't want their money.
>>>>>Agreed.  Great work on this list--we should start boycotting companies until they start contributing to both sides.  7% isn't enough to buy MY silence.

Such a broad boycott would be a waste of time.  It takes a lot of organization to mount a successful boycott.  Our time and resources are better spent in other ways.

We don't want their money.  We want the Democratic Party to start standing up to Corporate America and return to the economic populism that once made it the majority party in this country.

More here

by Marc Brazeau 2004-11-25 01:21PM | 0 recs
Re: We don't want their money.
Boycotts used to take a lot of time, but wouldn't the internet facilitate it much quicker if it were very coordinated and directed?
by Jerome Armstrong 2004-11-25 02:29PM | 0 recs
Re: We don't want their money.
Actually, I've made this argument in the past, Jerome, but got no support for it. My thought was, if the Sinclair boycott backlash was that successful, why not expand on that?
by Green Irishboy 2004-11-26 09:30AM | 0 recs
Voter == Donor
Why not limit donor rights to people who can vote? Only people with votes should be allowed to donate any money to political parties.

"But what about the business interest?"
Well, businesses are run by individuals, right? Those individuals can donate.

by leftie jones 2004-11-26 03:33AM | 0 recs
i'd support it....
where do i sign up?
by Chavez100 2004-11-26 03:06PM | 0 recs
not practical to boycott everything
You are surprised that the ruling class mostly funds the party that helps them the most with their vision of unbridled greed?  Unless you are going to live in a cave and eat tree bark, I don't think a boycott is practical.  

The Dems need to become the anti-corporate-greed party and rely on small contributions raised from millions of working families.  This year
we showed it can be done.  And while we will welcome any traitors to their class such as Soros, joining us, we can not match the Rethugs in pandering to corporate America.

We need to get into power and enact real campaign reform - limit contributions to $100 per person per electoral race per year, and
make it a refundable tax credit (we have a $50 refundable credit in MN for state races now).  

Support expanded public funding of campaigns for candidates who qualify through raising small contributions.  

Boycotts only work when you target selectively.
Trying to boycott every company in the capitalist system isn't going to work.  Later on,
eliminating laissez-faire capitalism and instituting democratic
socialism is the way to go.

by aenglish 2004-11-27 10:02AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads