May 1, 2008
Ozinga Cements Candidacy
The Illinois State GOP made their love of local business magnates official yesterday, anointing Martin Ozinga, of Ozinga Cement fame, as their candidate the 11th District congressional seat left open by Jerry Weller's retirement. The party picked Ozinga as a replacement candidate after New Lenox Mayor Tim Baldermann dropped out of the race. "We are excited to have Marty on the ticket," said Illinois Republican Party Chairman Andy McKenna in a statement after the decision was announced Wednesday morning. Ozinga will face Democratic State Senator Debbie Halvorson and Green Party candidate Jason Wallace in the fall.
After losing Dennis Hastert's seat to scientist Bill Foster earlier this spring, the state GOP is looking to Ozinga for a win, banking on his name recognition and fund-raising abilities. The concrete magnate told the AP that he doesn't believe in self-financing his campaign, counting instead on strong financial support from the community. Ozinga is pledging to spend no more than $350K of his own funds on a race that is expected to cost around $3 million. He's already raised over $400K from about 300 donors.
|
It's funny how the GOP is often painted as the party of the rich. I believe the rich and super rich support Democrats much more than Republicans though, no?
I would agree-
And, I can't find it now, but the top 20 or 30 wealthiest senators and congressman are mostly democrats. There is a list of this somewhere...
A2: It's a pretty even split with a lean towards the Republicans, especially by the wealth of Wall Street. (I can't remember where I saw the breakdown back in 2006... The Atlantic maybe?)
Rich Republicans do have a habit of living in blue states, though. BuyBlue.org was great for finding how companies' boards leaned (skewed red, but not overwhelmingly so). Now it seems to be under new management with none of the tasty data it used to have... perpetually under development.
Oh, but keep in mind that as the Dems have both chambers the wealthy will begin giving more to them... they're lobbying, after all, and it's more of a gimme gimme than some ideological statement.
Part of the appeal of the Republican spin is that it is aspirational - I wanna get mine! (so screw you!) Actual rich people (as opposed to those aspiring to "wealth") find themselves in the position of needing to protect their situation. Having lots of digits in the number that represents your balance in the bank's computer is worthless if we're facing environmental or societal crises. Thus, many (smart) rich people have a pro-Democratic bent. (Not that I'm biased in the least...)
But more on point: What? No mention of the Ozinga company billboards? The company spent a fair amount recently advertising the company name. When is the last time you actually selected a supplier of paving materials? How exactly did those billboards increase company sales? Hmmmm?
Suggested campaign slogan:
"Marty Ozinga: Not just another pretty face."
An urban cement magnate with lots of public works contracts? What could go wrong.....
Ha,
It shouldn't take long to shake the skeletons out of this dude's closet. Like so many other 'my brudder knows a guy' lucrative city contract holders who enjoy gaming the system and taking our tax money, I'm sure he's as clean as a they come.................
Tony,
My take on it would be that the super rich don't care if you tax them another 5%-10%, and voting Democratic is the easiest, most meaningless way to asasuge one's guilt over a lifetime of pillaging.
I dont know a thing about ozinga but Halvorson is the Dem majority leader in the state senate. She is E.Jones and blago's gofer she has stalled ethics legislation for over 18 months and is helping to stop recall legislation I dont really think she is the answer to problems in washington.
Ozinga likes Blago too, he's donated $23,000 to his campaigns. He's also run into a little trouble with allegations of creating front companies to win minority city contracts.
I guess he's a better stand-in candidate than Alan Keyes or Ditka.
rich people typically don't come out publicly and endorse republicans because it would make them seem greedy, which they no doubt are. trust me, the rich vote republican. rich democrats are just more vocal
A2,
Dems and Republicans have both got you fooled if you think that both of them aren't equally tied to lobby money. Democrat's policies are a little less damaging to the world than Republicans though, not much of a consolation, but true.
if ozinga gets elected, you can start the ozinga death watch.
that guy is an ethics/corruption scandal waiting to happen.
he's already broken multiple city laws in order to get around minority contracting regulations.
he's a pure and complete scumbag.
He's kind of like Jerry Weller in that way.
scumbags.
"Dems and Republicans have both got you fooled if you think that both of them aren't equally tied to lobby money."
Best sentence so far today.
Oh yeah and who is giving Obama more money than any candidate in history? The unwashed masses? March of dimes, right? Hardly.
No one has me fooled, so please don't talk down to me with your paucity of expertise.
I just find an unabashed, Republican greed monger like Sam Zell less nauseating than a self-righteous Hollywood movie star who's spent his entire life trying to pursue the most decadent life possible yell at all of the dumb midwesterners for voting Republican.
Oh yeah and who is giving Obama more money than any candidate in history? The unwashed masses? March of dimes, right? Hardly.
Who said anything about Obama? You're the one who started this Democrats are more tied to money than Republicans thing. I think they both are, but I'm not a pawn of either party.
No one has me fooled, so please don't talk down to me with your paucity of expertise.
Sorry,
I'll just try to ignore what *you actually wrote* next time.
I really dont think halvorson should be given a promotion for her complicity in the farce that is state goverment in Ill. She helped kill the recall vote today and ajourned the senate before a second recall bill could be voted on. Its a shame both canadates seem so flawed. Maybe the loser of the kirk/ seals race could move down south either would be better than these two.
Navin,
Citing statiscs is uselesss because there are a million different ways to parce the information, but the rich and super rich are supporting the Democrats somewhere on par at least with the Republicans.
Therefore, I think the CW that the Republican party is the party of the rich is inaccurate.
Sorry, I guess I stupidly assumed Obama might figure into the equation since he is the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Citing statiscs is uselesss because there are a million different ways to parce the information
Prove it. Parce the information to demonstrate both points of view.
Take two seconds to google it. Google "democrats" "rich" and "super rich" for my point of view.
I haven't bothered looking for information against my point of view, though I am sure it exists.
The reason there is no doubt millions of ways to parce the information is because "rich" is a nebulous term, as well as measuring which party they support--voting, donations, districts represtented, etc.
Sorry, I guess I stupidly assumed Obama might figure into the equation
That sounds about right.
You said this:
Oh yeah and who is giving Obama more money than any candidate in history?
Implying that I mentioned Obama or said that his shit don't stink, I did not. It's more like what you wanted me to have said. In reality I told you to quit listening to your favorite talk radio blowhard and realize that both parties are pretty much equally beholden to corporate interests.
Like YTB, I'd like to see you offer up something more substantial than 'because I said so' to back up your bumper sticker talking points too.
Navin,
I don't even own a radio. My favorite conservatie columnist is Charles Krauthammer, who I guarantee is about 10 times smarter than you.
A few stastics since you obstinately deny facts that are obvious to anyone who reads the paper.
"CNN's exit poll last fall showed that voters in the East making between $150,000 and $200,000 favored Democratic candidates by a 63-37 majority."
"Eight dollars out of every $10 collected from individuals by Democratic-leaning 527 groups have come from donors who have given at least $250,000 each, according to an analysis by The Washington Post of data on 527 donations maintained by Center for Public Integrity."
"Despite popular stereotypes of Republicans as the party of the rich and Democrats as the party of the working class, the wealthiest member of the Senate (John Kerry of Massachusetts) and the wealthiest member of the House (Jane Harman of California) are both Democrats. Of the top six wealthiest senators, five are Democrats."
"“Democrats now control the majority of the nation’s wealthiest congressional jurisdictions. More than half of the wealthiest households are concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats control both Senate seats.”
This is what I found in about two minutes. We won't even talk about Hollywood, Soros, Bing, Lewis or Pritzker.
Take two seconds to google it. Google "democrats" "rich" and "super rich" for my point of view.
That's not data! That's a Google search. Data, man, data! Plural of datum.
I don't even own a radio. My favorite conservatie columnist is Charles Krauthammer, who I guarantee is about 10 times smarter than you.
Ooooooh...burn!
Well it certainly is weird that Republican politicos are so poor yet so concerned with giving corporate welfare to the wealthiest corporations. Are they retarded?
That is data.
If you don't believe Obama's campaign is being propelled by the wealthy and mega wealthy, google "Obama" "Washington Post" and "April 11" for a good story on it.
So let's work through your replies...
Now you only need to add in the other regions of the country.
Now you only need to add in what the equivalent was for Republican-leaning groups.
What is the total distribution for both chambers of Congress?
Exact numbers please.
I see what you're doing here, of course. This isn't data, it's cherry-picked facts. What's worse, I'm completely willing to concede your point if you can just get me to some actual data, not something you found that you already believed in.
So, A2, I'll concede the point if you'll get me the numbers for the rest of the country on bulletpoint #1. You did look at the numbers this article was quoting to verify its veracity, yes?
That is data.
Take its standard deviation then.
Instead of writing a doctoral thesis or taking my own survey, I spent about a half hour finding the most impartial data on the subject I can.
The best article I found cited that while more wealthy districts are represented by Democrats, individual voters making over $100,000 a year vote Republican 52 percent to 47 percent across the country.
I can't find specific data on millionaires, multi-millionaires or billionaires.
But even disregarding the district data, I don't think a 5% voting difference makes the Democrats the party of the poor and the Republicans the party of the rich.
If you can find more compelling data, I would like to see it.
Well done, sir! I did my own crunching using opensecrets.org and found the opposite. I used the 2006 congressional elections crossreferenced to the Dow Jones companies and found that:
1.) Democrats were more likely to give larger donations all at once. And then to one candidate. Republicans were more likely to spread the wealth between multiple candidates/PACs.
2.) Of companies (eg Altria) that skewed Republican, they were more likely to have a large number of high donations to Republicans and only Republicans.
3.) People with titles beginning C* (CEO, COO, CFO, etc.) spread it around pretty evenly.
4.) But Democrats came out ahead, albeit slightly.
(Methodolgy: take donors whose last name begin A through F by company, then sum by candidate, by party... ie, a lot of work for a small conclusion.)
Opensecrets.org only keeps records of single donations of greater than $200 at a time.
I used that election cycle because:
a.) There didn't seem to be a foregone conclusion as to who would win the most seats, and
b.) The donations encompassed both primary and general election results.
I completely agree with your conclusion. I think we can confidently say that moneyed interests like this system just as it is. Or, as a donor myself that doesn't clock >$200 (with two, storied, exceptions that shall remain unattested), that the funding doesn't seem to skew either way, partywise.
I suggest a second conclusion... that the posters on Chicagoist make this the fucking smartest in the Istaverse, as it were.
Ha ha ha! Nerds on parade!
Interesting finds.