Jackson Free Press

Second Congressional District U.S. Rep. Bennie Thompson has the financial edge on campaign contributions and political action committee money this year as he cruises into the November elections against his Republican candidate and Tea Party member Bill Marcy.

Thompson, who has represented the district since 1993, reports a total of almost $2 million in cash on hand, according to the Federal Election Commission. The same report dating from Jan. 1, 2009, to Oct. 13, 2010, reveals $1.5 million in net contributions to his campaign, although Thompson has spent only $869,219 this election cycle.

While other Mississippi Democrats bend themselves into elaborate designs trying to appeal to Republicans, Thompson promotes his liberal political philosophy to his Delta voters. Other Mississippi Democrats agonized over their decision on health-insurance reform this year, but Thompson came on early vowing support for the effort, arguing that too many Delta residents do not go to the doctor because they lack insurance.

Unlike many white Mississippi federal politicians, Thompson has also shown support for comprehensive immigration reform that offers a path to citizenship for immigrants who obey U.S. laws.

As a long-time, reliable candidate, Thompson benefits from many political action committee donations, including about $158,000 from attorneys and the American Association of Justice, which typically opposes the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's 10-year program to stack court systems with corporate-friendly judges who side against plaintiffs in lawsuits.

Thompson, who is currently chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, also benefits from donations from national trade unions, as well as a few military contractors like Raytheon and Boeing's donations of $10,000. PAC donations constitute 61 percent of his campaign finances for this year, while individual contributions comprise 38 percent.

The Tea Partier has significantly less of a financial advantage. He raised $42,244 between January and October, but has spent $33,350. He only has about $8,800 on hand as of Oct. 13.

Marcy received only $350 from PACs during the last few months, the Federal Election Commission reported, while 93 percent of his donations came from individuals, many of whom donated of $250 to $300 to his campaign.

Even though elected Republican officials, like Lt. Gov. Phil Bryant, speak well of Marcy at Tea Party rallies around the Jackson area, few elected Republican officials are actually donating to his campaign. Republican State Treasurer Tate Reeves gave Marcy $250 in August.

Marcy describes himself as an enemy of taxation and wants to decrease the federal deficit. Like all Republicans looking to unseat a Democrat in Mississippi this year, however, Marcy, hasn't committed to cutting any particular federal program that amounts to more than 1 percent of the total national budget. Marcy, for example, supports the $700 billion U.S. Department of Defense budget.

On immigration, Marcy supports a "papers, please"-style Arizona law. The U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement community and the nation's Latino population oppose such a law because it profiles citizens.

Previous Comments

ID

160618

Comment

This is an interesting contrast in Mississippi Politics. On one hand you have the "good ol' boys"" who are touting the same ol' top down politics of less taxes and less (social) spending (they don't seem to mind spending trillions on war and defense). Then you have Thompson who unashamedly supports a bottom up agenda of social spending to relieve the poor (though it is troubling that he has become a millionaire since he has been in office). I truly believe that if more poor and minority people were politically aware and active in MS, the state's politics would be drastically different. Right now, segregation and the resulting concentration of both wealth and poverty seem to dictate the state’s politics. And that is a crying shame.

Author

Renaldo Bryant

Date

2010-10-29T14:26:03-06:00

ID

160621

Comment

Thompson is a millionaire? How? How much is his salary?

Author

jbreland

Date

2010-10-29T15:49:52-06:00

ID

160622

Comment

According to Opensecrets.org and the Daily Kos, Thompson was worth $966,011 in 2008 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/8/30/897656/-Say-Hello-to-the-Millionaires-Club,-that-Works-for-you

Author

Renaldo Bryant

Date

2010-10-29T16:00:48-06:00

ID

160623

Comment

I think Bennie is the perfect example of someone who remembers who he is, what he is, and what he's supposed to be doing, despite being able to eat and live better as a result of working the capitalistic system. Unless someone can show me he has deceived and taken advantage of the poor, middle class or someone else or others, then I consider him a marvelous example of what others in his position ought to be doing. He's the same as always as far as I can tell. Never heard of anyone who actually knows him and his personal situation saying he has changed or forgotten the little people and others he vowed to represent and help. And no one can tell me he panders to the wealthy like his predecessors did including Mike Espy. I know he has his enemies, and I further know you don't have to knowingly or negligently do anything wrong to have and make enemies. One sure way to make enemies is not the kiss the man's tail or allow him to control you. I've seen Bennie reach out and extend an olive branch to all persons that he is supposed to represent without regard to race, sex, religion or personal situations or preferences while being open to any legitimate situation brought to his attention or situation he personally observed or learned about. Nonetheless politics make strange bedfellows and knowing nowadays that politics is "all about money and ain't a damn thing funny," if you're going to play the game and succeed at it, you're going to have to earn some money or have some friends and enablers with some big money. Sad to say but true. As Nelson Mandela so sadly put it years ago, in so many words, the poor can only make the rich and powerful pause, but never change or cease their activities or goals. They will simply pause until the right or a better time to continue their actions of screwing or harming the poor unless and until greater opposing forces are evident and in action, or rare, unprecedented and unheard of antagonistic solidarity occur mass-wide that cause them to flee or be destroyed. I'm surprised he has gotten rich too, but I'm not against it unless it was ill-gotten and proven.

Author

Walt

Date

2010-10-29T16:49:05-06:00

ID

160627

Comment

A rank and file Congressman makes a salary of $175,000 per year. He has been a Congressman since 1993. Mr. Thompson lives modestly and does not have a mansion or estate. He lives in the house in Bolton he has occupied well before he was a Congressman. He getas my vote.

Author

FrankMickens

Date

2010-10-31T16:13:55-06:00

ID

160631

Comment

Frank, I am not saying he has gotten his money through ill gotten gains, $175K for 17 years should make one a millionaire if they use sensible spending and a responsible lifestyle. What I am commenting on is that a millionaire is hardly representative of who the people in the delta are. He may be in touch with the issues of the 2nd District, but does he have the sense of urgency to change the status quo needed out of the political leadership in that district? A millionaire may not feel the pinch the way a middle class worker would, and may not have the urgency needed to really question the status quo. I watched “Capitalism, A Love Story" this weekend (a documentary film by Michael Moore) and that film brought up a great deal about how capitalism exploits the poor and serves the wealthy. One of the issues it brought up was how the political process seems to buttress the wealthy (bailouts, tax codes, de-regulation of the financial industry, etc.). Yet, in a democracy, the people have the power to change the status quo. Time and time again, gov’t seems to work better for the wealthy than it does for the poor, especially when it comes to wealth distribution and access to opportunity. One striking scene was near the end when he showed scenes of people stranded on top of their houses after Hurricane Katrina. He noted that “it seems that the poor are always the people who suffer the most in catastrophes like this. How come Bernie Madof or Henry Paulson will never have to suffer like that?” In a bonus scene, Rep. Elijah Cummings notes that, possibly, the younger generations of leaders may need to revisit whether or not simply regulating capitalism is enough. Considering issues of wages and productivity and profit margins, can capitalism be a sustainable economic system for the US in the 21st century? That is the type of question that leaders of poor people (like in the delta) need to be asking.

Author

Renaldo Bryant

Date

2010-11-01T09:02:00-06:00

ID

160634

Comment

@ Blackwatch - "I watched “Capitalism, A Love Story" this weekend (a documentary film by Michael Moore) and that film brought up a great deal about how capitalism exploits the poor and serves the wealthy. One of the issues it brought up was how the political process seems to buttress the wealthy (bailouts, tax codes, de-regulation of the financial industry, etc.). Yet, in a democracy, the people have the power to change the status quo. Time and time again, gov’t seems to work better for the wealthy than it does for the poor, especially when it comes to wealth distribution and access to opportunity." You made these key points in your statement 1.how the political process seems to buttress the wealthy 2.Yet, in a democracy, the people have the power to change the status quo. For the life of me, I don't understand how people down here (Mississippi) keep placing people in office that really don't give a damn about their well being - better yet, they are o.k. with the status quo!?

Author

Duan C.

Date

2010-11-01T11:00:14-06:00

ID

160637

Comment

@Duan C The movie also referenced the Plutonomy-an economic system that was controlled by and benefitted the wealthy and thus posited the notion that in American, we were heading towards a Plutocracy-rule by the wealthy, rather than all people. It referenced an internal Citigroup Document entitled “Plutonomy-Buying Luxury, Explaining Global Imbalances” in which Citigroup economist note that there are threats to the Plutonomy , like natural disasters, wars, and such. But, an intriguing admission in the document is that they also recognize that democracy, one person, one vote and the notion that the working class has just as much power as the wealth in a democracy, could also threatened the plutocracy. This is why things like who funds the “Tea parties” and who actually represent using Congress and government are crucial to the identity of our democracy. It is also why we “progressives” seem to vex ourselves over why people seem to vote against their own interests in elections. Propaganda, education, and critical thinking are always important tools in democracies. There is a political historian and thinker named Steven Lukes who proposes that there are 3 dimensions to Political Power. The first concerns the people’s right to choose and second concerns gov’t ability to decide things. The 3rd is the most intriguing and I say, most powerful, the ability to control the debate concerning ideas and policies. The entities that control the debate or “agenda”, think tanks (“expert” opinions), media, schools, churches, cultural elite, etc., can have the most power in societies, especially when the gov’t. is democratic. This is where we get the people voting against their interests, because the access to critical thought and ideas is limited by those entities utilizing the 3rd dimension of power. Someone on another blog post here mention the Koch brothers. They are an interesting example of this notion in action. They fund all sorts of think tanks , and even departments or colleges of business and economics and politics, to expressly get “experts” to write about economic and political issues in a way that benefits their own interests, but yet present these issues as facts’ or “expert opinions”. It is always interesting to follow the money in these instances. This also make the recent Supreme Court ruling allowing for corporate interests to contribute to political causes without disclosure so important as well. Now, it makes it harder to follow the money, and thus elucidate the interests involved in a certain cause. Whatever happened to our cherished democracy?

Author

Renaldo Bryant

Date

2010-11-01T12:06:01-06:00

ID

160646

Comment

Blackwatch, As usual, I agrre with your most eloquently stated and soberly reasoned opinion. May I add my usual devil's advocacy without offending you? In my opinion, the cherished democracy you refer to has never been fully realized and it has been the action, blood and deaths of the social martyrs of our history that has moved us closer to a Democracy whose cherishing would be more universal. In the very beginning, the Founding Fathers stacked the deck in favor of the rich over the less than wealthy in the beginning with their concept of one landowner, one vote, and 3/5 representation for slaves. By the way, representation but no vote still exits in the Washington DC area. Ironically, inherited wealth was identified by Thomas Jefferson and in the Federalist Papers as the greatest threat to Democracy. Again, the cherished democracy you refer to has only moved closer towards realizaion with the action, blood and deaths of the labor/union movement martyrs and later the with action, blood and deaths of the Civil Rights martyrs, to mention only two of the major progressive movements of this great country of great people. People are still giving up their blood and dying today due to the insatiable greed of the wealthy. Infant mortality, hypertension, diabetes, obesity, all result in loss of blood and eventually pre-mature death in the less than wealthy populations of the inner cities, Delta and Appalacia, and the Reservations are due to national policies that benefit the wealthy. The media are lamenting that the top 10% or so of taxpayers pay over 60% or so of the taxes in this country; however they don't mention that 2% of the taxpayers in this country own, or control, 85% of the wealth of the country. The more you have to protect, the more you should have to pay in taxes, and this is an Old Testament principle!

Author

FrankMickens

Date

2010-11-02T03:24:13-06:00