Chay, Ricky,
Since
you can not open the links, I opened it for you. Yahoo was just asking
you to click on the icon to proceed. Here again, I was just answering
your post that billionaires favor Republicans. Now Ricky as his usual
with his red colored glasses and hat proceeded to his near moronic
proclamation, which is becoming like a drone.
Ricky,
do me favor and stop this nonsense. You are like a left wing nut whose
nuts are missing. Any post contrary to your belief is from a moron.
Please don't flatter yourself, Cesar and I gave figures and you gave
hunches and you expect me to say thank you.??
..HMC
Democrats funded by billionaires complain about Republicans funded by billionaires
The
left’s fixation with the Koch brothers is akin to CNN’s obsession with
the Malaysian Airlines disappearance. It’s 24/7 speculation and
conspiracy theories mixed with endless repetition. It’s hard to describe
the nonstop onslaught from the Democrats’ PACs and campaigns against
the billionaire libertarian brothers. Democrats run ads, complain about
them in mailers and jabber about them on cable TV shows. The brothers
seem, in some cases, their prime issue. So far it’s been a frightfully
expensive lark, not doing much to up the ante against Republicans. But
the Democrats seem to think it’s the only way to boost their base. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid goes on tirades like this:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nev., faces reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, March 11, 2014 (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
The Koch brothers and other moneyed interests are influencing the politics in a way not seen for generations. Republican senators have come to the floor to defend the Koch brothers’ attempt to buy our democracy. Once again, Republicans are all in to protect their billionaire friends. Not only have Senate Republicans come to the floor to defend the Koch brothers personally, they have again and again defended the Koch brothers’ radical agenda – and it is radical, at least from the middle-class perspective.
We
get it — billionaires are bad, bad guys. Now, it wouldn’t be
so despicable — anyone in politics these days can come up with a
distracting, unsuccessful bogeyman — if it were not for the sheer
hypocrisy of it all.
The Senate Majority PAC ads have
gone up in Louisiana and Colorado harping on “out-of-state
billionaires” trying to “rig the system.” It’s very similar to Reid’s
assault on the Koch brothers from the Senate floor. According to
reports, the Senate Majority PAC has only just begun.
News reports tell us that the Senate Majority PAC is going up with a $3 million TV ad attack against
Republicans in Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan and North
Carolina based on this message. But when you look at Senate Majority PAC
and those taking their money, it is hard to miss — you guessed it — the out-of-state billionaires trying to rig the system.
Who is the biggest donor to the Senate Majority PAC? Out-of-state billionaire Michael Bloomberg,
according to the latest FEC filings. But he is not alone. There are a
whole gaggle of billionaires giving to the Senate Majority PAC who hail
from states which don’t have Senate races in 2014. The list of
billionaire donors to the outfit condemning out-of-state billionaire
donors includes billionaires Eli Broad, Jon Stryker, Steven Spielberg and Dirk Ziff.
Also ponying up money to the Senate majority fund are
not-quite-billionaire Hollywood donors such as Jeffrey Katzenberg and
the Weinstein Company. (All you have to do is compare the contributor
list on OpenSecrets.org to the Forbes billionaire list.)
The candidates the Senate Majority PAC is supporting also take moneydirectly from
out-of-state billionaires. Using the donor look-up search on
OpenSecrets you can find, for example, Sen. Mary Landrieu – whose
campaign has been blasting the Koch brothers – got money from a different out-of-state billionaire, Eli Broad.
What about North Carolina Senator Kay Hagan? Her campaign gripes about the billionaire Koch brothers but she took billionaire money directly from television mogul Haim Saban. Not to be left out, Sen. Mark Pryor, who also decries billionaires flooding the state, eagerly rakes in cash from Colorado moneyman Charles Ergen. Sen. Mark Udall is upset about all that billionaire money but has his own billionaire donors — Soros and Leonard Lauder,
for example — in addition to the benefit of the Senate Majority PAC’s
billionaire-financed ads decrying the role of billionaires in politics.
Billionaires also route money to these Democrats through the Democratic
Senatorial Campaign Committee.
Now,
I’ve got no problem with third-party money or with billionaires giving
money directly to campaigns; neither do most Republicans. But it is
Democrats who brought up the Koch complaint and who have been impugning
the Koch brothers. In 2010 Democrats attacked the nefarious and
non-existent “foreign money” from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; now it’s
two businessmen. But if it’s all that terrible to take billionaires’
money then the Democratic candidates and the Senate Majority PAC should
give back their billionaires’ cash.
If not, the next time the aggrieved Democrats are on a cable TV new show, someone should ask them: Why are your billionaires any better than your opponent’s billionaires?
How many billionaires support the Democratic vs. Republican parties?
By Lauren Carroll on Monday, June 23rd, 2014 at 4:28 p.m.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the GOP has more billionaire supporters than the Democrats do.
Recently,
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has been on a crusade
against what he believes is undue influence from wealthy individuals and
corporations in campaigns, enabled in part by Supreme Court decisions
in the Citizens United andMcCutcheon cases.
A reader pointed us to one of Reid’s latest comments on the subject from the Senate floor.
"The
decisions by the Supreme Court have left the American people with a
status quo in which one side's billionaires are pitted against the other
side's billionaires, except one side doesn't have many billionaires,"
he said in a floor speech.
This comment quickly prompted the Republican National Committee to circulate aYouTube video of Reid’s comment, with the mock-incredulous headline, "Harry Reid Claims Democrats Don't Have Billionaire Backers."
At first, we thought Reid said, "one side doesn’t have any billionaires"
-- as did some critics on social media. If he had said "any," that
would have been a false statement. But a close listening shows that Reid
said "many."
That makes our job harder -- how many of America’s 492 billionaires do you need to have the backing of "many" billionaires? And do Democrats have fewer than Republicans?
We
can’t answer the question of which side has more because it’s
impossible to know exactly who donates to elections and how much they
give. Certain types of political nonprofits are not required to disclose
all their funders, although some do so voluntarily.
For
example, despite being Reid’s biggest rhetorical targets, brothers
David and Charles Koch do not appear as donors on any of the campaign
finance information we reviewed. The two businessmen co-founded
Americans for Prosperity, an influential conservative super PAC.
But
by looking at some publicly available information -- mostly from the
Center for Responsive Politics’ Open Secrets database, which collects
disclosure data from the Federal Election Commission -- we were able to
get an idea of what role America’s billionaires play in each party.
We cross-checked the Open Secrets list of the top 100 individuals donating to outside spending groups in the current election against the Forbes list of the world’s billionaires and
found that, as of June 19, there were 22 individuals on the Open
Secrets list who were billionaires. Of those 22 billionaires, 13 -- or
more than half -- gave predominantly to liberal groups or groups
affiliated with the Democratic Party. The other nine gave predominantly
to conservative groups. (A list of billionaires and how much they donated can be found here.)
Among
the liberal-leaning donors are former New York City Mayor Michael
Bloomberg and business magnate George Soros. On the conservative side
are S. Daniel Abraham, who founded SlimFast, and Vincent McMahon, who
owns World Wrestling Entertainment.
These
lists aren't complete due to the disclosure rules protecting donors'
identities. Both sides are spending more of this "dark money" than ever
before, said Robert Maguire, a political nonprofit investigator at the
Center for Responsive Politics.
Still,
from what we know about this cycle, the Democrats do have significant
billionaire backing. The top donor from either party so far this cycle
is pro-Democratic -- California billionaire Tom Steyer, who has given
more than $11 million and has pledged to spend at last $50 million.
His group, NextGen Climate, plans to attack Republican candidates in
several competitive races on climate change. Some have called Steyer’s
initiative a liberal answer to the Koch brothers.
In other recent election cycles, though, Republicans have had the upper hand.
According to Open Secrets,
Republicans had a larger share of the billionaires -- and their
contributions to outside spending groups -- in the 2012 election cycle.
Among the top 100 donors in the Open Secrets list, 33 were billionaires,
and of those, 14 gave primarily to liberal groups while 19 gave to
conservative groups.
In addition, the
top 100 donors of 2012 gave 41 percent of all the money collected by
outside spending groups, and of their donations, 71 percent went to
conservative groups.
Some
of the leading Republican-oriented donors were Jon Huntsman, Sr.,
father of the 2012 Republican presidential hopeful; Richard and Bill
Marriott of the hotel chain; and casino mogul Sheldon Adelson. Adelson
topped the list at more than $90 million in donations -- three times
what the next top donor gave.
The Republican advantage in 2012 is even more visible in a Forbes list of
the top 40 billionaire backers on each side -- including more than just
those who donated to outside spending groups, such as direct campaign
donations or those who fundraise for a candidate. Of those 40, 29
supported conservative groups and candidates, and just 11 supported
liberals.
Republicans tend to donate to and use non-disclosing groups more
than Democrats do, said Center for Responsive Politics spokeswoman
Viveca Novak. Conservative political nonprofits spent almost five times
as much as liberal ones in 2012, according to Open Secrets data. So far
in 2014, they have spent almost twice as much.
That
said, there were some notable liberal billionaire donors in 2012, as
well, including filmmaker Steven Spielberg and LinkedIn co-founder Reid
Hoffman.
Also, neither party is pleading poverty these days due to funds raised from people below the billionaire bracket. So far in the 2014 election cycle,
the top Democratic Party committees have raised more than $725 million,
according to Open Secrets. The top Republican Party committees have
raised more than $600 million. In the 2012 election, the Democrats and
Republicans each raised about $1.7 billion.
Democrats
may have closed the gap this cycle by getting more support from the
growing number of young, ultra-wealthy liberals in Silicon Valley --
like Hoffman, who is worth $3.2 billion at 47 years old -- suggested Forbes reporter
Clare O’Connor, who has covered the subject. At the same time, an
increasing number of the very rich are splitting their support between
the parties, she said.
We
can’t make a final call on whether or not Reid was right in saying the
Democratic Party "doesn't have many billionaires." We know that both
parties have billionaire backers. In 2012, the advantage went to the
Republicans. So far in 2014, the Democrats have the edge in terms of
public donations to outside spending groups. But this is far from a full
picture because of current donation disclosure rules.
"We’ll never know," O’Connor said.
..HMC
..HMC
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 6:53 PM, Ricky Sobrevinas <ricksobrevinas@yahoo.com> wrote:
Mar,
I don't castigate Honorio for his idiotic ideas. I castigate him for
not using his rusting brains to think through the ideas he slavishly
absorbs from Fox News to determine their veracity, and using those same
unconfirmed, untruthful ideas to hurt the interests of Filams and
American that have literally destroyed the middle classes in a country
that was once so great it was the shining example of the world.
Now
all we have are middle class suffering on top of the oppressed Poor
that ha brought down the inequality to Third World levels and consigned
the country to mediocrity and decay. It is the height of idiocy for
Filams to be so ensconced with the ultra right wing who are paid minions
of the billionaires in this country that actually hurt families and the
future. When obviously intelligent people start acting like they're
retarded and work against their own interests totally refusing to
critically assess the assumptions of the ideas they propound, that is
what I find objectionable. A brain is too precious a gift to waste which
deserves being castigated when deliberately used for nefarious
policies.
Now
why should anyone castigate you as a Progressive when you have Truth on
your side as you never have to use prevarications in expressing your
ideas?
Ricky
On Monday, November 17, 2014 10:53 AM, Cesar Lumba <lumbacesar@gmail.com> wrote:
Oyo,
I clicked on the two links you provided and surprise, surprise, I got this message in both instances: Page Not Found.
By
the way, you are right: the $113 billion is a ridiculously low figure.
It has been estimated that $3.4 billion was spent in the last elections
(federal, state and local governments).
Now
we're back to the logic of the climate change debate. The Huffington
Post article talks about known contributions of billionaires. It does
not include contributions of multimillionaires, millionaires and rich
and ultra-rich. It does not include contributions of grass-roots
activists on both sides. It does not include the contributions of
politicians themselves who tapped their own campaign war chests.
We're talking about billionaires, and the known distribution of billionaire contributors favors the Republicans lopsidedly.
I
can't be any more empirical than that. And I hope you will not argue
that the unidentified contributions must have favored the Democrats
because that is pure speculation. The Tea Party people and conservatives
think alike - it's a fact if they say so. This is not the climate
change debate redux, where you argue that because 97% of the scientists
did not participate in one survey they must not have an opinion, or they
must be climate change deniers too.
C
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 6:35 AM, hmcruzmd <hmcruzmd@gmail.com> wrote:
Ricky,
Once
again, you are wearing your Blue Hat. You are the one not using your
brain with that stupid assertion. Can you just reread what the thread
was, from Cesar L which showed a ridiculously low amount on money $113 Million spent by billionaires to support either parties,
not only Republicans, from a left leaning Huffing & Puffington
Post. I posted the one from Washington Post and Politifact to show the
opposite opinion. All told the campaign contributions from both sides is
probably a billion dollars, probably of equal amounts to each party.
But that's the problem with you, you go on half cocked, even without
reading and understanding my and the previous posts, only to say that
the Republican Party Spends more money coming from the rich.
If
you are alleging that only the Billionaire donors for the Republicans
try to circumvent the election rules with secret donations, you are
further along in losing your neurons. First of all, do you think you
know more than these investigative reporters reporting on these issues.
Don't tell me, you are hobnobbing with these billionaires so you know
the score. Well, good for you.
..HMC
..HMC
On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 11:31 PM, Ricky Sobrevinas <ricksobrevinas@yahoo.com> wrote:
HMC,
$113 M to Republican candidates? How naïve can you be? Have you heard
of Citizens United. The Republican Supreme Court ruled that donors can
conceal their political contributions to PACs which now have a right to
conceal their donors anonymously, supported by Republicans. This
anonymous feature kills transparency and allows Republican billionaires
to conceal their massive political influence from the public.
Democrats
and liberals opposed this lack of transparency as did the Democratic
members of the Supreme Court. Any guess as to why Republican
billionaires wanted money contributions a secret? You do have a brain
don't you?
Ricky
On Monday, November 17, 2014 1:05 AM, Honorio Cruz <hmcruzmd@gmail.com> wrote:
Chay,
Both
Parties have Billionaire donors. As to how many and by how much depends
on which side of the aisle publishes it or whether they intend to use
it for moral or to disparage the other party for being on the side of
the rich. The Democrats have traditionally lambasted the Republicans for
being in the pockets of the rich. If you are to believe what Huffington
Post is recounting, then you have to believe that the Billionaires
backing the Republicans as pikers
The Huffington Post reported on Thursday that Americans whose fortunes exceed $1 billion and their families have contributed a total of $113.7 million in this year's races for federal offices
Don't
you think that the amount given by Huffing and Puffinton Post of $113.7
million for both parties, is a mere pittance as compared to how much
the Democrats got, beginning with Tom Steyer pledging $100 million for
2014.
A
billionaire retired investor is forging plans to spend as much as $100
million during the 2014 election, seeking to pressure federal and state
officials to enact climate change measures through a hard-edge campaign
of attack ads against governors and lawmakers.
The donor, Tom
Steyer, a Democrat who founded one of the world’s most successful hedge
funds, burst onto the national political scene during last year’s
elections, when he spent $11 million to help elect Terry McAuliffe
governor of Virginia and millions more intervening in a Democratic
For balance, let us read this from Washington Post and Politifact.
The
truth is that both parties have more or less equal campaign War Chest
coming from billionaires. To blame one party as recipient of more funds
from the rich is biased reporting.
..HMC
On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Cesar Lumba <lumbacesar@gmail.com> wrote:
Oyo,
Karl Rove does not have to appear often in Fox News to do his damage. In fact, he need not appear at all.
His
job in this and the 2012 elections was to mobilize the billionaires, to
stir them to so much frenzy that they would be willing to part with
millions just to see the Democrats lose.
In
2012 it didn't work, so Rove retooled and planned his demolition job
more carefully. The result: he discouraged enough Democratic voters to
hand the elections to Republicans handily.
Below is an article about the participation of America's billionaires in the elections just concluded.
And
these were just the billionaires we know about. There were a lot of
billionaires and millionaires that were never identified because they
contributed to so-called nonprofit corporations whose donors, by law,
never had to be disclosed.
C
Top Billionaire Campaign Donors Favor Republicans In 2014
Posted: 09/26/2014 8:58 pm EDT Updated: 09/26/2014 8:59 pm EDT
WASHINGTON
-- The wealthiest Americans are playing a larger role in politics these
days, thanks to campaign finance laws loosened by the Supreme Court's
conservative majority. Billionaires can now make unlimited contributions
to super PACs, or, if they prefer discretion, to nonprofit groups that don't disclose their donors.
At
the same time, the rich are making contributions directly to candidates
and political parties. In fact, the Supreme Court ruled in April in
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission that those with the means may
contribute to as many candidates and political party committees as they
please.
The Huffington Post reported on Thursday that
Americans whose fortunes exceed $1 billion and their families have
contributed a total of $113.7 million in this year's races for federal
offices. Billionaires have given $27.4 million directly to parties,
political campaigns and leadership PACs, with more than one-quarter of
those direct contributions from just 20 billionaires. Contributions from
individuals and their families come from Federal Election Commission
records for party committees, candidate committees and leadership PACs
affiliated with candidates.
Donors
are limited to giving $2,600 per election to each candidate. A donor
who gives the maximum to a candidate in both a primary and a general
election contributes a total of $5,200. For candidates who have run in a
special election and face a subsequent election within the same
two-year cycle, donors can give up to $10,400. National party committees
can receive $32,400 per year from a donor, and may accept an additional
contribution in the event of a recount. State party committees can
receive up to $10,000 per year. Leadership PACs may accept an annual
maximum of $5,000.
Below are the 20 top billionaire donors to these committees for the 2014 election, so far:
1) Sheldon Adelson, Las Vegas: $814,300 (100 percent to Republicans)
Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images
Casino
magnate Sheldon Adelson, the top donor to super PACs in the 2012
election, has flown under the radar so far in this year's midterms.
Adelson has not registered a single super PAC donation this cycle.
Instead, the CEO of Las Vegas Sands Corp. has chosen to make
contributions to dark money nonprofits, allowing him to avoid
publicity. Politico reported that Adelson had donated $10 million to the Karl Rove-founded nonprofit Crossroads GPS.
Adelson,
with a fortune estimated at $28.5 billion, has reached the top of
billionaire donors to campaigns and parties with help from his family.
His contributions are combined with those of his wife, Miriam, his
daughters, Shelley, Sivan and Yasmin, and the latter two daughters'
husbands. All contributions have gone to Republicans. The Republican
National Committee received $324,000 from the Adelsons, while the
National Republican Congressional Committee brought in $226,800. Rep.
Joe Heck (R-Nev.) was the leading recipient among candidates, with
$36,400.
While
Adelson's interests include stability for his business in China, and
banning online gambling, a threat to his profit at home, his main
political concern is the unflinching support of the U.S. for Israel.
Adelson is a major supporter of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu and spent tens of millions to support pro-Israel charities.
2) Richard DeVos, Holland, Michigan: $692,450 (100 percent to Republicans)
AP Photo/Phelan M. Ebenhack
Richard
DeVos, the Amway co-founder worth a reported $6.8 billion, heads a
large family active in Republican Party politics and conservative
causes. The DeVos family has given $692,450 to Republican Party
committees and candidates in 2014. The Michigan-based family has, for
decades, funded conservative causes, including thepassage of anti-labor right-to-work laws,
opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage, and the creation of
charter schools. All of their contributions have gone to Republicans,
with more than half going to candidates.
3) Charles Koch, Wichita, Kansas, and David Koch, New York: $682,100 (100 percent to Republicans)
Ron Galella via Getty Images
Brothers
Charles and David Koch, heirs and operators of the nation's largest
private company, Koch Industries, have become the most prominent faces
of billionaire politics through their vast and well-financed political
machine. In addition to the millions spent by groups connected to them,
the Kochs and their families have contributed $682,100 to Republican
Party committees and candidates in 2014. The Koch political network
includes groups like Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Partners
Chamber of Commerce. These groups plan to spend close to $300 million on
the midterm elections.
4) Charles Schwab, San Francisco: $487,100 (100 percent to Republicans)
Bloomberg via Getty Images
You've probably seen the rotoscope-animated commercials for
his discount brokerage service on television. Behind that business is a
major Republican Party donor also linked to the Koch political network.
Schwab and his family have given $487,100 to Republicans in 2014. The
majority of this has gone to party committees, like the Republican
National Committee and National Republican Senatorial Committee.
5) Steve Wynn, Las Vegas: $481,200 (100 percent to Republicans)
Bloomberg via Getty Images
Steve Wynn, operator of Wynn Casinos in Las Vegas and Macau, became known forpolitical tirades during earnings calls with investors following
the election of President Barack Obama. Wynn said that Obama holds a
"weird political philosophy," and makes "speeches about redistribution"
using language not heard, "except from pure socialists." In 2012, Wynn
emerged as a major funder of Rove's Crossroads GPS.
Wynn and his family have given $481,200 in 2014 in disclosed
contributions. Nearly all of this went to Republican Party committees.
6) Ken Griffin, Chicago: $473,609 (100 percent to Republicans)
CNBC via Getty Images
Hedge fund billionaire Ken Griffin in 2012 made headlines for saying that the rich have "an insufficient influence"
in politics. He proceeded to muddle this statement by becoming one of
the leading donors to political campaigns and super PACs. While Griffin
and his wife Anne recently announced they were divorcing, their
contributions since the beginning of 2013 totaled $473,609. Griffin
donated to Obama in 2008, but now all of his contributions go to
Republicans.
7) Vince and Linda McMahon, Greenwich, Connecticut: $456,050 (100 percent to Republicans)
Jim Spellman via Getty Images
Vince
and Linda McMahon, operators of World Wrestling Entertainment, emerged
as major Republican Party donors in recent years as Linda McMahon
attempted to launch her own political career. After two failed Senate
runs, Linda McMahon has fallen into place as one of the party's most prolific donors.
She and her husband have given $456,050 to Republicans in 2014, with
large amounts to the party committees. Linda McMahon also provides
strong support to Republican women candidates and incumbents.
8) Paul Singer, New York: $451,700 (100 percent to Republicans)
Associated Press
Hedge
fund billionaire Paul Singer is known for buying distressed foreign
debt and then reaping big rewards when the payments come through. He is
also a major Republican Party donor who has expanded his profile within
the party in recent years. The billionaire financier runs a super PAC, a
nonprofit and a joint fundraising committee to funnel his money around
the country, giving to other unlimited money groups and directly to
candidates and parties. Singer is also a major supporter of right-wing
political parties in Israel and advocates a hawkish foreign policy in
support of Israel and against its enemies. Overall, he and his family
have given $451,700 to Republicans, in addition to the millions to super
PACs.
9) James Simons, East Setauket, New York: $341,100 (98 percent to Democrats)
Bloomberg via Getty Images
James
Simons, founder of the high frequency trading hedge fund Renaissance
Technologies, is the top donor to Democratic Party candidates and
committees in 2014. Simons, a major super PAC donor, also has given
$341,100 to political candidates and parties, almost entirely to
Democrats. His sole contribution to a Republican was $5,200 to Rep.
Peter King (R-N.Y.).
10) Philip Anschutz, Denver: $323,200 (100 percent to Republicans)
Associated Press
Billionaire
entertainment investor Philip Anschutz has long been a supporter of
Republican politics. He is a major backer of evangelical Christian
organizations opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage. He also is a
major supporter of charter schools, and funded the pro-charter
documentary "Waiting for Superman." Anschutz and his family have given
$323,200 to Republicans in 2014. Most of that has gone to party
committees.
11) Stanley Hubbard, St. Paul, Minnesota: $321,150 (95 percent to Republicans)
12) J. Joe Ricketts, Little Jackson Hole, Wyoming: $320,325 (100 percent to Republicans)
13) Haim Saban, Beverly Hills, California: $310,000 (100 percent to Democrats)
14) Charles Johnson, Hillsborough, California: $309,400 (100 percent to Republicans)
15) Stephen Bechtel, San Francisco: $307,601 (100 percent to Republicans)
16) John Catsimatidis, New York: $284,550 (85 percent to Republicans)
17) John Fisher, San Francisco: $279,400 (96 percent to Republicans)
18) Kenny Troutt, Dallas: $261,400 (100 percent to Republicans)
19) Bruce Kovner, New York: $257,600 (92 percent to Republicans)
20) Marc Rowan, New York: $256,600 (63 percent to Republicans)
ALSO ON HUFFPOST:
No comments:
Post a Comment