Chamber’s Money Well Spent: 63 Percent of Races Won; 20 Incumbent Democrats Defeated

[deminks]

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/03/chamber-effect-elections/

For months, Think Progress has been chronicling the “U.S.” Chamber of Commerce’s $75 million campaign to put its interests over working- and middle-class families. It uses its substantial war chest to protect companies that outsource, oppose health reform, oppose Wall Street reform, and oppose clean energy. The Chamber will not disclose who is financing this campaign, fearing a public backlash. But we know the results: The 112th Congress will have more members to protect its pro-outsourcing, anti-middle class agenda.

So far, the Chamber’s spending contributed to the defeat of 20 incumbent Democrats. In all, the Chamber spent $31.8 million on ads or independent expenditures in 62 races. Six of those races are too close to call as of this afternoon. Of the remaining 57, the Chamber’s candidate won 36 of them — or 63 percent. The cost of those 36 wins: nearly $17 million.

(snip)

On the flip side, the Chamber spent $11.4 million on races it lost. However, that figure is deceptive since nearly $5 million of that amount went to unsuccessfully defeat Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA).

(end snip) great graphic at the link.

So when the pundits are up there telling you that Amurika has turned right or is centrist or is just not that into you, remember that this election was brought to you by the US Chamber of Commerce on behalf of secret and foreign donors.

Hmmmm. 63% for $32 mil. (that we know about). That doesn't seem that great of a return to me.

[deminks]

1. kick for the afternoon

:kick:

[CommonSensePLZ]

2. 63% for $32 mil, but actually

Estimated that they're gonna fight for $700 billion in tax cuts, so if they managed (doesn't seem likely but who knows) to pull that off it would be +1100% of what they spent going to the top 2% is what I hear.