Senate Democrats bail out war corporations instead of people, a breakdown
Speaking Security Newsletter | Advisory Note for Organizers and Candidates, n°60 | 11 December 2020
Instead of another relief bill, the Senate just passed a $740.5 billion military budget bill (#NDAA) with the support of 39 Democrats. I found that Senate Democrats who voted Yes took in nearly 6x more campaign cash from the defense industry than those who voted No.
*House version, here; support my think tank (SPRI), here.
Situation
The Senate passed the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that authorizes $740.5 billion in military spending, 84-13.
As in the House, the majority (87%) of Senate Democrats ignored public opinion by voting for the NDAA. They also should have not voted for it considering:
The Senate still hasn’t issued another relief bill featuring direct payment to US adults (which is supported by 82 percent of registered Democrats and 70 percent of all Americans).
Social spending reduces inequality and military (‘national security’) spending does the opposite.
The bill enables endless war by funding a global US military presence (which is why one can’t be anti-war without being anti-imperialist; an elaboration on this point, here and here).
Top-line stats
Senate Democrats who supported the NDAA received on average 5.8x the amount of those who voted against it.
Average amount accepted from the war industry (2020 cycle) among Senate Democrats who voted Yes on the bill: $215,446
Average amount accepted from the war industry (2020 cycle) among Senate Democrats who voted No on the bill: $37,443
Full breakdown
I sorted Senate Democrats from least to most cash received from the war industry then color-coded each by vote (green = good vote; brown = bad vote).
Defense industry cash (predictably) corrupting congressional votes on defense is clearly a theme here (aside from Sen. Klobuchar, whose bad vote may be more attributable to an unresolved ideological problem than corruption).
*Data via Open Secrets. “2020 cycle” refers to 2015-2020. In the House it refers to 2019-2020. Data retrieved today.
^What a one-party system looks like.
Conclusion
I hope this information is helpful and didn’t engender too much cynicism. Keep fighting for a better Congress.
Thanks for your time,
Stephen (@stephensemler; stephen@securityreform.org)
Find this note useful? Please consider becoming a supporter of SPRI. Unlike establishment think tanks, we rely exclusively on small donations.