Political Contributors Follow The Leaders

Are corporate contributions based on belief in who the best or more capable candidate might be, or on political expediency? The news media recently reported that, while for the years 2006 through 2009, the majority of corporate contributions went to Democrats, thus far in 2010, the opposite is true, with close to sixty percent of all corporate political contributions apparently going to Republican candidates, or to the Republican Party. Since much of the public is under the perception that corporate America is predominantly more conservative, and thus tends to lean Republican, during 2006 through 2009, the opposite was true. Was that a change in belief, or merely a recognition in the weakening and softening of support for President Bush and many Republican office holders? Obviously, that was the same period that there was a change in the party of the President (which many anticipated because of anti-Bush sentiment), and in 2008, both the President and both Houses of Congress swung dramatically to the Democrats.

Largely because of the continued troubling economy, the perception by many Americans that the measures taken have both not worked and been wasteful, and the weakening poll numbers of both the President and the incumbents (and since the Democrats are presently in power, there are far more Democratic incumbents), there appears to widespread belief that there will be a major realignment in the power balance between the political parties at the 2010 mid-term elections.

Of course, the Tea Party's success and popularity has made it far more difficult to predict results, and even President Carter has likened his short-term popular election in 1976 to a dissatisfaction of the American public, similar to what is intensifying the Tea Party's appeal. American politics has traditionally been cyclical, and American voters have traditionally taken out their dissatisfaction and frustration by voting "the bums out." Therefore, many political pundits are predicting a dramatic victory for the Republicans in 2010.

Is corporate money therefore following the leader? It has in the past, and it certainly appears that it is once again during this election cycle. However, the Republicans should carefully remember this caveat that their dramatic victory in 2010 could strengthen President Obama's and the Democratic Party's chances in 2012, especially if the public does not perceive noticeable and dramatic improvement.

Tea Party Success- Worse for Democrats or Republicans?

There is little doubt that the recent support and success of the Tea Party and its candidates is to a large degree a reaction by American parties to dissatisfaction with the direction of the country, the economy, the joblessness rate, a general malaise, and our existing government and elected officials. The question that may be far more relevant, however, is, "Is the Tea Party's success more of a threat to the Democrats or the Republicans?"

There has been much spin on all sides of the political spectrum as well as in the news media related to this question. Republicans state that the public's disenchantment gives them an advantage for the mid-term elections in November 2010, and that they believe they can then take control of the Congress. Some Democratic pundants, while keenly aware of the ledge they are teetering on, feel the Tea Party may actually splinter the Republican party, or give easier candidates for the Democratic candidates to run against than would the more traditional Republican party candidates. The media are also spinning this issue to support their point of view and preferences.

Traditionally, Americans tend to be relatively centrist politically. They may, for a short period, become a little more conservative or liberal, depending on certain issues, and the overall tone and mood of the electorate. However, what this means for the mid-term elections is certainly unclear. Tea Party candidates could ride an emotional wave to victory in November, but a historical perspective indicates that it will probably be short-lived.

What may even be more interesting, however, is that President Obama's chances to be re-elected may very well be enhanced for 2012 if the Republicans gain control of the Congress in 2010. In what would be perhaps the ultimate irony for Tea Party zealots, that scenario would give the President the opportunity to blame the Congress for whatever goes wrong, which he cannot do with his own party in control?

Therefore, whether the Tea Party is a short-lived fad and protest, or a long-term trend, the end result is that it will create some sort of rift within the Republican party. As the adage goes, my advice is, "Be careful what you wish for."