Author Topic: Harry Reid Got More $$$ From Lobbyist-Bundlers Than Any Other Senator  (Read 119 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 69,510
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
- FrontPage Magazine - http://www.frontpagemag.com -



Harry Reid Got More $$$ From Lobbyist-Bundlers Than Any Other Senator

Posted By Daniel Greenfield On June 17, 2014 @ 11:34 am In The Point | 2 Comments




The Democrats talk about getting money out of politics like heroin addicts talk about quitting. Harry Reid rants about the Koch Brothers every time you pull a little string on the back of his neck, but he’s worst of the bunch.


Reid, indeed, raised a larger percentage of his campaign cash from lobbyist-bundlers than any other member of Congress, 14 percent, or $357,000 of the total $2.6 million he raised.

And so is his party.


No other political candidate or group received more money from lobbyist-bundlers than the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which raised nearly $2.6 million from them despite regularly criticizing lobbyists and Republicans who associate with them.

And guess where the money is coming from…


Lobbyist Tony Podesta of the Podesta Group ranked as the Democratic Party’s top fundraising ally on K Street, records show, bundling about $550,000 combined for Reid and the DSCC.

Podesta, whose brother John Podesta serves as an adviser to Obama, represents a range of corporate clients, including drugmaker Amgen, BP, Google, Wal-Mart, and Wells Fargo.

Calling John Podesta an adviser significantly understates his power and impact in shaping Team Obama.

So yes, let’s talk about getting money out of politics and then stuff our pockets. It’s the Democratic Party way.


Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://www.frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/harry-reid-got-more-from-lobbyist-bundlers-than-any-other-senator/
Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning, or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness or judicial research. They are instruments of a practical nature, founded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings.

Joseph Story


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf