Senators Who Voted Yes on Syrian Strike Received More Defense Cash Than Those Who Didn’t

vaderIt’s no surprise, really, but it’s always sickening to see yet another clear sign that democracy is an illusion. (It’s particularly obvious in this case, given that the majority of Americans do not want a military strike against Syria.)


Senators voting Wednesday to authorize a Syria strike received, on average, 83 percent more campaign financing from defense contractors than lawmakers voting against war.

Overall, political action committees and employees from defense and intelligence firms such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, United Technologies, Honeywell International, and others ponied up $1,006,887 to the 17 members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who voted yes or no on the authorization Wednesday, according to an analysis by Maplight, the Berkeley-based nonprofit that performed the inquiry at WIRED’s request.

Committee members who voted to authorize what the resolution called a “limited” strike averaged $72,850 in defense campaign financing from the pot. Committee members who voted against the resolution averaged $39,770, according to the data.

Keep reading.

11 Comments on "Senators Who Voted Yes on Syrian Strike Received More Defense Cash Than Those Who Didn’t"

  1. BuzzCoastin | Sep 5, 2013 at 4:29 pm |

    The top three defense-campaign earners who voted “yes” were Sen. John
    McCain (R-Arizona) at $176,000; Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) at
    $127,350; and Sen. Timothy Kaine (D-Virginia) at $101,025.

    it’s hard to believe that those payments are not higher
    even added up over time doesn’t amount to much
    I’d love to see the secret numbers

    • Anarchy Pony | Sep 5, 2013 at 4:35 pm |

      Are you sure they’re not just really easily bought?

      • BuzzCoastin | Sep 5, 2013 at 4:37 pm |

        when I worked at Citi back in the mid 80’s
        one million was coffee money
        and if you examine the financials of the “representatives”
        it’s easy to see this is just window dressing
        and not the real payoff

        • I agree the reported amount received is cake icing. The real payoffs never see the light of day.

      • Charlie Primero | Sep 6, 2013 at 4:15 am |

        BC is correct. Formal, documented campaign contributions are chump-change window-dressing. Federal legislators are rewarded with millions of dollars worth of insider trading stock market information and special buy options to their kids and relatives that never make the press.

        This is how they go into office as $300k per year lawyers and come out as multi-millionaires.

  2. BrainofJFK | Sep 5, 2013 at 8:37 pm |

    Ah Congress, the best whorehouse money can buy!

  3. Haystack | Sep 5, 2013 at 9:05 pm |

    I’ve been following the vote tallies on CNN, and, for the first time ever, I’ve found myself thinking “It’s a good thing there are all those Republicans in the House.”

  4. You mean politicians can be bought??? I for one am shocked and appalled.

  5. lifobryan | Sep 6, 2013 at 11:40 am |

    Hmmm ….. the capitol-dome-shaped light atop the seedy lamppost is not as bright as it once was. You used to be able to tell the Democrats from the Republicans by the shade of their lip gloss or brand of fishnet stockings. Now its too damn dark to tell one whore from another! That said, I suspect you can still smell the difference. Democrats cover their venereal stench with perfume, while Republican mask it with cigarette smoke & gin.

  6. DeepCough | Sep 6, 2013 at 12:39 pm |

    Hey, no lobbyist contribution, no representation.

Comments are closed.