Follow the Money
 

How economics impacts a vote. The wrong kind of economics.


Senators Supporting Auto Bailout Had Union Money on Their Side
Published by Communications on December 12, 2008 3:04 PM | Permalink
Although the senators who voted in favor of the auto bailout didn't receive more money on average from automakers and dealers than those who opposed it, money from the United Auto Workers correlated significantly with votes to help out Detroit.


WASHINGTON--In Thursday night's Senate debate over whether to rescue American automakers, the questions that derailed the bailout plan were how quickly and by how much to cut autoworkers' pay to control costs. Clues to how a senator would answer those questions lay in how much money the United Auto Workers union had contributed to his or her campaign, the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics has found. Senators who supported the UAW-backed legislation received nearly 14 times more money, on average, from the union in the last 20 years than those who voted against it--$21,671.29 compared to $1,600.




The bill that would have injected $14 billion into Detroit's struggling companies, General Motors, Chrysler and Ford, failed in the Senate to get the 60 votes necessary to keep it alive. And unlike in the House, where money from the automotive industry correlated with the way a member voted, money from the industry as a whole was less likely to indicate which way senators would go Thursday. The 35 senators who voted against rescuing the Big Three and their workers had actually received 60 percent more from the auto industry than the 52 who voted for the loan--$161,365.89 compared to $101,134.98.

Although the Big Three's campaign contributions favored Democrats in the 2008 cycle, auto manufacturers and dealers have historically been staunch Republicans, giving the GOP three-quarters of their contributions in the last 20 years. Car dealers had given 152 percent more money to the senators who voted "nay" Thursday (most of whom were Republicans) than those who voted "yea" ($133,299.17 compared to $52,987.54).