Bain execs contributed more to Democrats than Republicans in last 6 years

posted at 11:55 am on January 19, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Earlier today, I noted the hypocrisy and the utter incompetence in the White House of having the President’s campaign team attack Mitt Romney for having a “Bain mentality” while Barack Obama appointed a new OMB director who previously worked as CEO for Bain.  However, Obama’s decision doesn’t look that strange once you take into account what the “Bain mentality” on politics has been for the past six years.  The Hill researched political donations from Bain’s senior executives, and found that their mentality has been rather Democratic, at least until now:

Democrats have accepted more political donations than Republicans from executives at Bain Capital, complicating the left’s plan to attack Mitt Romney for his record at the private equity firm.

During the last three election cycles, Bain employees have given Democratic candidates and party committees more than $1.2 million. The vast majority of that sum came from senior executives.

Republican candidates and party committees raised over $480,000 from senior Bain executives during that time period.

Note that the cycles researched were 2008, 2010, and 2012.  Undoubtedly, the 2008 cycle was a good one for Democrats and was widely predicted to be so.  It wouldn’t surprise anyone to see Wall Street firms placing bets on Democrats in the cycle that elected Obama.  However, the 2010 cycle was not just a bad one for Democrats, but also a reaction to ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank, which had Wall Street significantly shifting its support.

Nor has the entry of Romney made a big impact on this overall ratio, at least not yet.  It’s been years since Romney helmed the company, but he has received more than $160,000 in the last three cycles, half of which he got last year.  However, Barack Obama got more than $80,000 since 2007 and over $27,500 last year.  How will he attack Bain Capital and Romney’s success there while defending the benefit he has personally received from it?

If these contributions were just a bet on outcomes, they would have been quite a bit more even.  Instead, it looks like the Bain mentality has been pretty lucrative for Axelrod and the Democratic Party overall.  It has also been lucrative to red-state Senate Democrats in deep trouble this cycle, such as Claire McCaskill (MO), Jon Tester (MT), and Bill Nelson (FL).  If Obama wants to paint Romney as a corporate raider, the response should be why Obama and these Senators took money from the corporate raiders they claim to detest, assuming Romney wins the nomination.  The Bain attack will likely be as big a flop in the general as it proved to be in the primaries.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

OH SNAP!

FlatFoot on January 19, 2012 at 11:58 AM

The Romney Cayman attack is just as dubious a line for the Dems and their ABC enablers:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/01/another-romney-financial-scandal.php

onlineanalyst on January 19, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Not at all surprising.

Del Dolemonte on January 19, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Instead, it looks like the Bain mentality has been pretty lucrative for Axelrod and the Democratic Party overall.

Well, well, well…

cicerone on January 19, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Another reason Obama is in trouble against Romney.

ajbell on January 19, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Wait a minute. Aren’t Dems demonizing these guys for being taxed at only 15% on their carried interest income? Yet they’re entirely willing to accept their campaign contributions?

Which WH reporter will be the first to ask snarky Jay whether Dems are accepting “blood money”?

BuckeyeSam on January 19, 2012 at 12:01 PM

There’s got to be a way to tie racism or marriage infidelity into this Bain deal to give it traction. ABC is surely working on it.

DanMan on January 19, 2012 at 12:02 PM

How much did Romney contribute to Dem. candidates and Obama?

they lie on January 19, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Does Bain hate capitalism? Why else would they give to a Marxist party?

red_herring on January 19, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Unprecedented!

search4truth on January 19, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Another reason Obama is in trouble against Romney.

ajbell on January 19, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Obama would be in trouble regardless of who wins the nomination.
This does not negate any attacks that the DNC would make against Romney (not agreeing with them, of course – just saying it would not cancel it out) because they would simply say they don’t get to pick and choose who donates to their campaigns and that accepting said contributions does not equate to approving of Bain’s evil practices (again, DNC spin).

SleightOfHand on January 19, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Every time I see a picture of Axelrod I picture him in a flannel shirt, wearing shaded glasses, and talking with John Goodman about “Da Bayers!”

Mini-Ditka 45, Packers -3…..

JohnTant on January 19, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Does Bain hate capitalism? Why else would they give to a Marxist party?

red_herring on January 19, 2012 at 12:03 PM

As I mentioned in the Headline thread about this story, plenty of Halliburton employees have over the past decade donated to the Democrats, and in 2006 Leftist Sugar Baby George Soros bought $62.6 million worth of the company’s stock, or 2% of his entire portfolio.

Why do you think the Left suddenly started bashing the evil Koch Brothers? Because Halliburton is toxic to them now.

Del Dolemonte on January 19, 2012 at 12:08 PM

All that counts to Democrats is to get the first lie/untruth out, because that is all that is remembered or has higher impression on voters.

The truth may come out later, but the impact of the lie has worked. Hence the methods of Debbie “Downer”, chief exec of Democrat party.

albill on January 19, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Poor Axelrod, he must have climbed too far up the tree. Now everyone can see his butt.

Logus on January 19, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Wow, what does tell us about Romney, that many of his friends and associates support the Dems over the Repubs…

Another reason to say no to Romney

georgealbert on January 19, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Axelrod is a bigger hypocrite than Newt Gingrich. And remember, Newt is a man who was banging his staffers and his wife for six years before confessing the whole sordid affair. And all the while he was preaching about family values to the nation.

Despicable.

rogaineguy on January 19, 2012 at 12:11 PM

How will [O] attack Bain Capital and Romney’s success there while defending the benefit he has personally received from it?

Enthusiastically and with the media running interference.

By “how,” you meant “in what manner,” right?

kunegetikos on January 19, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Wouldn’t this also show that Democrats aren’t beholden to their donors? All the solyndra talk is that democrats are corrupt and give favors to their donors. They’re not doing any favors for bain right now.

red_herring on January 19, 2012 at 12:13 PM

For me the real interest is in how this plays in the public. We have a press willing to spin and a Republican party with a lack luster marketing and public relations arm.

Cindy Munford on January 19, 2012 at 12:14 PM

So, when will this utter hypocrisy be revealed in the MSM? Never I’m sure. So what’s the point? Red meat for cons, that’s it.

Aplombed on January 19, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Every time I see a picture of Axelrod I picture him in a flannel shirt, wearing shaded glasses, and talking with John Goodman about “Da Bayers!”

JohnTant on January 19, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Funny, but I picture him in a trenchcoat hanging outside of day care centers.

TXUS on January 19, 2012 at 12:16 PM

So, when will this utter hypocrisy be revealed in the MSM? Never I’m sure. So what’s the point? Red meat for cons, that’s it.

Why exactly is this hypocrisy? Should democrats support every one who gives them money? Wouldn’t that be corruption?

red_herring on January 19, 2012 at 12:17 PM

I imagine we’ll here all about this – right after the Socialist; National Media fully exposes the Walkergate scandal..

Chip on January 19, 2012 at 12:17 PM

How is this startling news? Romney was a Democrat up until he ran for office. The man voted for Paul Tsongas!

OliverB on January 19, 2012 at 12:18 PM

In a world void of media bias and filled with people who take the time to be informed, the Democrat approval rating would be less than 1%.

If only we had a little buzzer inside of us that went off every time we told a lie. If we did, every Democrat would sound like a yellow jacket that flew into a wall outlet. Nonstop.

fogw on January 19, 2012 at 12:21 PM

So Mittbots, when it was reported that Mitt’s main campaign donors where Bain Execs last week, you were defending as “shows that they think Romney is good for the job, they believe in him”…..Please start to realize how stupid defending anything Romney as good, is making you look.

And that larger point goes for all who appeal to consevatism. What I see here is one of the liberal donors also LOVE them some Romney. I bet you 10K that if Romney was not running for pres, he would be donating to them too!

Yeah, what a rep the GOP will have in him. We are witnessing the redefinition of conservatism… Don’t you get it?? If Romney is the new conservative, this country is LITERALLY TILTING TO THE LEFT!

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on January 19, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Why exactly is this hypocrisy? Should democrats support every one who gives them money? Wouldn’t that be corruption?

red_herring on January 19, 2012 at 12:17 PM

From the first line of Ed’s post:

Earlier today, I noted the hypocrisy and the utter incompetence in the White House of having the President’s campaign team attack Mitt Romney for having a “Bain mentality” while Barack Obama appointed a new OMB director who previously worked as CEO for Bain.

Aplombed on January 19, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Romney, a white Obama. Voting for him over Obama is racist.

they lie on January 19, 2012 at 12:26 PM

So Mittbots, when it was reported that Mitt’s main campaign donors where Bain Execs last week, you were defending as “shows that they think Romney is good for the job, they believe in him”…..Please start to realize how stupid defending anything Romney as good, is making you look.

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on January 19, 2012 at 12:22 PM

You really don’t understand the point of this story, do you? The issue here is hypocrisy. The Dim-o-crats want to follow Newty’s example and criticize Romney for his involvment with Bain, because Bain represents “the evils of capitalism.” That’s problematic for Dim-o-crats in light of the fact that they happily take money from those same “evil corporatists.”

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

cicerone on January 19, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Why exactly is this hypocrisy? Should democrats support every one who gives them money? Wouldn’t that be corruption?

red_herring on January 19, 2012 at 12:17 PM

no, it’s called lobbysm in this country, and it’s legal…

jimver on January 19, 2012 at 12:32 PM

However, Barack Obama got more than $80,000 since 2007 and over $27,500 last year. How will he attack Bain Capital and Romney’s success there while defending the benefit he has personally received from it?

The same way liberals defend their support of War,K Street,and expanding Bush’s War on Terror policies…..

“When a democrat does it…it’s okay and for “reform”…it’s “smart power”….it has stronger “oversight”…..

…When a Republican does it…it’s “evil” and stolen off the backs of the poor.

The “Inspiration of the OWS” movement according to her own words,Elizabeth Warren,who has whinned and yelled about “Wall St. buying influence on the Hill”…..
…………..is a perfect example of this idiotic hypocrisy:

Wall Street money for Warren

The Oklahoma Professor has been criticizing Scott Brown for being “Wall Street’s favorite Senator.” She has also denounced “Wall Street cash in politics.”

But it turns out she may be indirectly accepting Wall Street money. The Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee, which is helping the Harvard Professor, has taken over $40 million from Wall Street during the last 7 years according to records from OpenSecrets.org. In fact, Wall Street is the biggest contributors to them.

http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/news/lone_republican/

Last week I exposed how she was funnelling Wall Street money through the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee. This week we find out how she is taking the money directly into her campaign account. She says that Wall Street people, who donate to her, support “reforms.” In other words Wall Street Lizzy donors are good and Wall Street Brown donors are bad. So it is OK for her to take money from Wall Street, but not for Scott.

President Goldman Sachs himself decries the “evil influence of fat cat money” while being:

Obama attacks banks while raking in Wall Street dough
By John Rossomando

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/10/obama-attacks-banks-while-raking-in-wall-street-dough/#ixzz1jvUW5del

Despite his rhetorical attacks on Wall Street, a study by the Sunlight Foundation’s Influence Project shows that President Barack Obama has received more money from Wall Street than any other politician over the past 20 years, including former President George W. Bush.

Over and over and over the lies and hypocrisy of the democratic party is on display yet the Obama cultist will continue to spout their ideological drivel about Obama not being bought and sold by special interest like those “evil Republicans”……

It is more than apparent that a main component of being a loyal democrat is that you have to be a complete moron.

Obama/Biden 2012
4 more years of the Chickenhawk,Wall St. bought,President downgrade!!!!!

Baxter Greene on January 19, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Romney, a white Obama. Voting for him over Obama is racist.

they lie on January 19, 2012 at 12:26 PM

Clueless as ever.

cicerone on January 19, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Earlier today, I noted the hypocrisy and the utter incompetence in the White House of having the President’s campaign team attack Mitt Romney for having a “Bain mentality” while Barack Obama appointed a new OMB director who previously worked as CEO for Bain.

Ed,

Where do you get that the OMB director was the CEO of Bain?

Update: Bain & Company says that Zients worked there from August 1988 to June 1990

red_herring on January 19, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Why exactly is this hypocrisy? Should democrats support every one who gives them money? Wouldn’t that be corruption?

red_herring on January 19, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Why yes it would, although that doesnt change the fact that both parties do exactly that… tit-for-tat… contribute to my campaign and I will write legislation or gaurantee loans or carve out a tax break that benefits you.

However, if they are going to demonize a group or business, perhaps they should refuse their money? Seems a bit unscrupulous to take campaign contributions from the very same people that you decry in public as bad people. Therein is the hypocrisy. That said, both parties happily do the same thing. The only rule of morality that any of them from either party seem to have is whatever makes them richer and gets them reelected in order to continue to make themselves richer.

It’s a total racket, and we all buy into it like our continued votes for the candidates of these two parties makes a damn bit of difference in how Washington conducts it’s affairs.

gravityman on January 19, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Romney was a Democrat up until he ran for office. The man voted for Paul Tsongas!

OliverB on January 19, 2012 at 12:18 PM

For a Democrat, Tsongas was actually not that bad. While socially liberal he was an economic moderate, and was definitely pro-business. He was actually criticized by some Democrats as being too much like Ronnie Reagan.

And as wiki reminds us:

In the mid-1980s, he shocked many of the members of the Americans for Democratic Action by telling them that they should focus more on economic growth than wealth redistribution.

Del Dolemonte on January 19, 2012 at 12:39 PM

if they are going to demonize a group or business, perhaps they should refuse their money? Seems a bit unscrupulous to take campaign contributions from the very same people that you decry in public as bad people.

Why? Bain will just stop giving them money. Problem solved.

red_herring on January 19, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Could this reflect a little on Romney? Does this demonstrates the kind of company Bain is and by association the kind of politician Romney is? Clearly he is at best a moderate Republican/Democrat.

Romney is the most “more of the same” candidate out there.

JeffVader on January 19, 2012 at 12:44 PM

(NBC, ABC, SeeBS, CNN): “Nothing to see here folks, keep moving.”

(meanwhile, back at Bain HQ)

“Awright, WHO leaked this?
Oh, it was you? . . . You ‘accidentally’ did it?
Great, that’s just GREAT.
Well, I’m giving you ‘fair warning’: When Debbie Wassermann Shultz calls, I’m patching her through to YOU!

listens2glenn on January 19, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Another reason Obama is in trouble against Romney.

Yes, because Romney is more progressive than Obama. Obama could never deliver a public option with ObamaCare because, unlike Romney’s RomneyCare, he couldn’t pass off its costs to the federal government since his plan is a federal plan.

casuist on January 19, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Why exactly is this hypocrisy? Should democrats support every one who gives them money? Wouldn’t that be corruption?

red_herring on January 19, 2012 at 12:17 PM

no, it’s called lobbysm in this country, and it’s legal…

jimver on January 19, 2012 at 12:32 PM

Barely legal… highly immoral… in my personal opinion. Congress skirts the laws against corruption by the letter of the anti-corruption laws, but readily violate the sprirt of those laws.

It’s the same as the PACs arguments in this election. Yeah, the PACs are technically “independent” of the campaigns by the letter of the election laws. But pleeeeeease… does anybody honestly believe the PACs are operating without at least some general guidance from the campaigns? If you do, I have a lovely bridge for sale.

gravityman on January 19, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Why? Bain will just stop giving them money. Problem solved.

red_herring on January 19, 2012 at 12:43 PM

You actually believe that? Poor soul.

The Democrats may moan and piss about big business in public, but they know where their bread is buttered. They are perfectly happy to write legislation and adjust the tax code to help out those very same big businesses that contribute to their campaigns. But then they come tell the public how big business is bad in order to keep us poor saps voting for them. It’s how lobbying works. The Republicans do the same thing.

Republicans and Democrats are different sides of the same corrupt coin. The differences between them are all dogma. The real meat and potatoes of the whole process is whatever gets them both re-elected and keeps both parties in power. The ultimate truth of it is that both parties really just want to make sure that one of the two parties is always in power, so that both parties can continue to enrich themselves. What really scares them both is the idea of a third party that might actually want to change how Washington actually works.

I lived in DC for 38 years and worked in government. I saw it every day.

All this election bullsh*t is just smoke and mirrors for us to argue over and think we are making a difference. They are all snake oil salesman getting rich off us while they piss on the Constitution.

gravityman on January 19, 2012 at 1:00 PM

For a Democrat, Tsongas was actually not that bad. While socially liberal he was an economic moderate, and was definitely pro-business. He was actually criticized by some Democrats as being too much like Ronnie Reagan.

And as wiki reminds us:

In the mid-1980s, he shocked many of the members of the Americans for Democratic Action by telling them that they should focus more on economic growth than wealth redistribution.
Del Dolemonte on January 19, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Yeah check out his speech in 1992-

“George Bush promised “Read my lips, no new taxes.” It won an election. But what he meant was “Read my lips, add more debt.” That is generationally immoral.”

That is the same line Democrats always use to raise taxes; and let us look at this beauty of liberal melodrama that may have won Mitt over in 1992:

That sense of sacredness, that thinking in generations, must begin with reverence for this earth. This land, this water, this air, this planet-this is our legacy to our young. Yet the Reagan-Bush years have been a time of cynical avoidance of one environmental issue after another — acid rain to energy conservation to depletion of the ozone layer to global warming to uncontrolled world population. Journey with me to a true commitment to our environment. Journey with me to the serenity of leaving to our children a planet in equilibrium.

Tsongas and Romney- Reagan Conservatives?

OliverB on January 19, 2012 at 1:04 PM

How will he attack Bain Capital and Romney’s success there while defending the benefit he has personally received from it?

Easy. Barry will just do it. The MSM won’t point out the hypocrisy, and the usual lemmings will buy everything that comes out of Barry’s mouth.

GarandFan on January 19, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Sorry Ed but Jeff Zients was not a CEO at Bain and Company. He was just a lowly consultant. He left and a lot of money working for a different company. And just an FYI Bain and Company doesn’t have a CEO.

Ricki on January 19, 2012 at 2:14 PM

To Bain, or not to Bain, that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the campaign mind to throw out
The slings and arrows of outrageous accusations,
Or to take bask in a sea of hypocritical contributions
And by opposing end them.

– Krakenspeare

Kraken on January 19, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Where in the MSM will anybody be letting the American people know what Ed Morrissey wrote. We have to find someway beside the net, to get news to people. They will be led like sheep, the way things are now.

KOOLAID2 on January 19, 2012 at 2:24 PM

not to worry, the liberal media will swiftly sweep this under the rug and never allow it to be discussed

burserker on January 19, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Hahaha, this is pretty hilarious. As conservatives spent the last few weeks lining up behind Bain’s form of free market capitalism and vilifying Newt Gingrich for criticizing a firm that has “created jobs” whose efforts have “saved companies” and who engage in the “normal risks of investment” I waited for the other shoe to drop. And here it is. There is really, *REALLY* no way any real conservative intellectual can claim that the Democratic party and Obama are “radical socialists.” The evidence of Obama and the Dems responding to and being bought by Wall Street firms like Bain has been plain for everyone to see for years. But now, we have conservatives saying that this type of corporation is perfectly fine for the “free market.” If people continue to make the claim that Obama is a socialist after this they reveal themselves to be ignoramuses or driven entirely by hatred.

libfreeordie on January 19, 2012 at 4:09 PM

“Newt is a man who was banging his staffers and his wife for six years before confessing the whole sordid affair. And all the while he was preaching about family values to the nation.

Despicable.

rogaineguy on January 19, 2012 at 12:11 PM”

Yes, that’s what we should be concerned about, Newt’s sex life! Oh and the second one who stole him from the first one is surprised he cheated on her, lol! I know Newt’s biggest problem is Newt, but you know what, he got the job done!

Despicable is what we have now, a man who parties into the night while more and more citizens sign up for food stamps! We are told that he is a great husband and father though.

Africanus on January 19, 2012 at 4:11 PM

The Dems need to change their name to the Hypocrat Party to meet Truth in advertising requirements.

dentarthurdent on January 19, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Wait didn’t Obama just appoint an Ex-Bain Execitive who made MILLIONS as the new head of the OMB…

Asianeyes704 on January 19, 2012 at 5:26 PM