Washington is For Sale and the Defense Industry is Buying

 

According to Open Secrets, while the defense industry is not one of the largest contributors to politicians, it is one of the most powerful sectors with individuals and political action committees associated with the defense sector contributing more than $27 million to political candidates during the 2012 Presidential Election Cycle.  Since 1990, the sector has contributed $213.756 million to politicians with 57 percent of the contributions going to Republican candidates and 43 percent going to Democratic candidates.  Here is a list showing which sectors of the economy are the most active contributors to the federal political process in 2013 – 2014:

 

Note that defense comes in thirteenth place, spending a tiny fraction of what is donated by the finance, law and health sectors.

 

On the lobbying side, the defense industry has spent far more than they have spent on donations to specific candidates; in each year from 2005 to 2013, defense has spent over $100 million on getting Washington to see things their way as you will see later in this posting.

 

Let's look at more details on the contribution side first.  Here is a graphic showing the top defense corporate contributors for 2013 – 2014:

 

 Here is a bar graph showing the trends in contributions for each election cycle since 1990:

 

Total contributions have risen from $7.18 million in 1990 to a peak of $27.654 million in 2012 and have hit $19.74 million thus far in the 2014 election cycle. 

 

Here is a bar graph showing the split between Republicans and Democrats:

 

In only four election cycles (1992, 1994, 2008 and 2010) did the Democratic candidates benefit from more than half of the total contributed by the defense industry.  Note that in 2008, the split was almost even with Democrats receiving 51 percent of the total.

 

Now, let's look at the all-important lobbying side.  This is where the defense industry really shines. The main issue for the defense sector is securing government contracts and influencing the defense budget and various earmarks for their own gain. 

 

Here is a bar graph showing the annual spending on lobbying by the defense industry:

 

Total spending so far in 2014 has reached $61.92 million with $28.4 million coming from the defense aerospace industry subsector and the remainder pretty much evenly split between the defense electronics subsector and the miscellaneous defense subsector.  Spending on lobbying peaked in 2008 when the defense industry forked over $152.3 million to get Washington to see things their way.  Since October 2001 when hostilities first broke out Afghanistan, the defense industry has spent more than $1.5 billion on lobbying in Washington.

 

The defense industry has a huge number of lobbyists as shown on this graph:

 

In 2014, there are 734 lobbyists, down from a peak of 1285 back in 2007.  In 2014, 58.1 percent of defense industry lobbyists are revolvers, that is, they have previous insider connections with the federal government of one form or another.

 

In closing, let's look at a couple of specific examples; Lockheed Martin and Boeing, the number one and two largest defense contractors in the United States:

 

Lockheed Martin:

 

Arms Sales: $35.7 billion

Total Profit: $2.9 billion

Employees: 132,000

NASA and the Defense Department account for 80 percent of annual sales

 

2014 Election Cycle Contributions: $3.28 million (31st out of 15,802)

Lobbying: $7.175 million so far in 2014 (14th out of 4225)

 

Here is a graph showing Lockheed Martin's lobbying expenditures from 1998 to the present:

 

 Boeing:

 

Arms Sales: $31.4 billion

Total Profit: $2.9 billion

Employees: 160,500

Boeing is a top recipient of government loan guarantees through the Export-Import Bank of the United States.

 

2014 Election Cycle Contributions: $2.479 million (48th out of 15,802)

Lobbying: $7.99 million so far in 2014 (13th out of 4225)

 

Here is a graph showing Boeing's lobbying expenditures from 1998 to the present:

 

As a Baby Boomer, I can clearly recall hearing about the dangers of the rising strength of the military-industrial complex, an issue that we were warned about in President Eisenhower's farewell address in 1961 where he states:

 

"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

 

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

 

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

 

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." (my bold)

 

If we wonder why Washington, particularly the Republican Party, leans toward military intervention, I think that seeing how much the defense industry spends on campaign donations and lobbying should give us some explanation.  With Washington being for sale, it looks like President Eisenhower's warnings of five decades ago have gone unheeded or unnoticed by those in powerful places.

 

Consider us warned.

 

Click HERE to read more of Glen Asher's columns