Saturday, December 12, 2009

OpenSecrets

The following table, from OpenSecrets.org, lists the top 100 lobbying organizations ranked by money spent. I had always imagined that the lobbying money was mainly Republican. This suggests it is heavily Democratic.
LEGEND:  Republican  Democrat   On the fence
= Between 40% and 59% to both parties
= Leans Dem/Repub (60%-69%)
= Strongly Dem/Repub (70%-89%)
= Solidly Dem/Repub (over 90%)


RankOrganizationTotal '89-'09Dem %Repub %Tilt
1AT&T Inc$43,938,53544%55%
2American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees$41,728,31198%1%   
3National Assn of Realtors$35,376,88348%51%
4Goldman Sachs$31,343,06264%35%
5Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers$31,287,95797%2%   
6American Assn for Justice$31,232,47990%9%   
7National Education Assn$30,035,41792%6%   
8Laborers Union$28,705,40092%7%   
9Service Employees International Union$27,830,01795%3%   
10Carpenters & Joiners Union$27,650,18389%10%  
11Teamsters Union$27,549,87492%6%   
12Citigroup Inc$26,948,42850%49%
13Communications Workers of America$26,940,14699%0%   
14American Federation of Teachers$26,282,22198%0%   
15American Medical Assn$26,277,47339%60%
16United Auto Workers$25,767,00298%0%   
17Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union$25,002,27798%0%   
18National Auto Dealers Assn$24,189,70831%68%
19Altria Group$24,052,64128%71%  
20United Food & Commercial Workers Union$24,027,83398%1%   
21United Parcel Service$24,003,68136%63%
22American Bankers Assn$22,303,71641%58%
23National Assn of Home Builders$21,753,55536%63%
24EMILY's List$21,148,79699%0%   
25National Beer Wholesalers Assn$20,786,84532%67%
26Time Warner$20,195,86071%28%  
27Microsoft Corp$19,917,84653%46%
28JPMorgan Chase & Co$19,646,27851%48%
29National Assn of Letter Carriers$19,369,53488%11%  
30Morgan Stanley$18,450,05845%53%
31Verizon Communications$18,376,31240%59%
32Lockheed Martin$18,205,72742%57%
33AFL-CIO$18,115,11295%4%   
34FedEx Corp$17,876,41640%59%
35General Electric$17,741,06951%48%
36National Rifle Assn$17,299,83617%82%  
37Credit Union National Assn$17,105,36448%51%
38Sheet Metal Workers Union$16,999,91397%2%   
39Ernst & Young$16,992,78644%55%
40Bank of America$16,985,18847%52%
41American Dental Assn$16,380,95446%53%
42Operating Engineers Union$16,317,55085%14%  
43American Hospital Assn$16,306,33053%46%
44Blue Cross/Blue Shield$16,210,71840%59%
45Plumbers & Pipefitters Union$16,131,51194%5%   
46Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu$15,868,72035%64%
47International Assn of Fire Fighters$15,833,14382%17%  
48Air Line Pilots Assn$15,564,02784%15%  
49PricewaterhouseCoopers$15,303,09336%62%
50Natl Assn/Insurance & Financial Advisors$15,015,85542%56%
51AFLAC Inc$14,763,26944%55%
52Merrill Lynch$14,303,13037%61%
53Union Pacific Corp$14,211,64824%75%  
54Boeing Co$13,946,60747%52%
55United Transportation Union$13,538,19588%10%  
56Pfizer Inc$13,537,34229%69%
57United Steelworkers$13,512,44799%0%   
58Reynolds American$13,344,77724%75%  
59Ironworkers Union$13,085,52592%7%   
60BellSouth Corp$12,993,78245%54%
61American Institute of CPAs$12,841,35342%57%
62Credit Suisse Group$12,412,64044%54%
63American Postal Workers Union$12,000,82695%4%   
64National Rural Electric Cooperative Assn$11,936,82152%47%
65General Dynamics$11,670,29446%52%
66American Financial Group$11,443,82518%81%  
67GlaxoSmithKline$11,062,99429%70%  
68Walt Disney Co$10,924,74967%32%
69Chevron$10,857,90424%75%  
70Exxon Mobil$10,616,67314%85%  
71Natl Active & Retired Fed Employees Assn $10,496,00077%22%  
72MBNA Corp$10,059,00617%82%  
73General Motors$9,952,26438%60%
74UST Inc$9,938,81121%78%  
75Freddie Mac$9,871,49043%56%
76Human Rights Campaign$9,856,26690%9%   
77AIG$9,762,41250%49%
78National Restaurant Assn$9,703,64516%83%  
79Southern Co$9,695,79431%68%
80MetLife Inc$9,464,19255%44%
81Prudential Financial$9,428,19948%51%
82American Academy of Ophthalmology$9,314,53852%47%
83National Cmte to Preserve Social Security & Medicare$9,200,49980%19%  
84Eli Lilly & Co$9,120,60928%70%  
85CSX Corp$8,997,77931%68%
86Associated General Contractors$8,883,44114%85%  
87American Maritime Officers$8,855,22146%53%
88Amway/Alticor Inc$8,763,0010%99%   
89National Cmte for an Effective Congress$8,707,94099%0%   
90Archer Daniels Midland$8,304,11443%56%
91Seafarers International Union$8,217,64484%14%  
92American Airlines$8,125,53547%52%
93MCI Inc$8,093,47246%53%
94American Council of Life Insurers$7,640,50437%62%
95Marine Engineers Beneficial Assn$7,413,12774%25%  
96Bristol-Myers Squibb$7,263,61221%77%  
97Enron Corp$6,583,25728%71%  
98Andersen$6,313,42237%62%
99BP$6,137,02828%70%  
100Vivendi$4,492,49067%32%
Based on data released by the FEC on November 08, 2009.

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center

Monday, December 07, 2009

Cap and Fade

Great Op-Ed piece by James Hansen (book) in the NYTimes.
There is a better alternative [than cap and trade], one that would be more efficient and less costly than cap and trade: “fee and dividend.” Under this approach, a gradually rising carbon fee would be collected at the mine or port of entry for each fossil fuel (coal, oil and gas). The fee would be uniform, a certain number of dollars per ton of carbon dioxide in the fuel. The public would not directly pay any fee, but the price of goods would rise in proportion to how much carbon-emitting fuel is used in their production.

All of the collected fees would then be distributed to the public. Prudent people would use their dividend wisely, adjusting their lifestyle, choice of vehicle and so on. Those who do better than average in choosing less-polluting goods would receive more in the dividend than they pay in added costs.

For example, when the fee reached $115 per ton of carbon dioxide it would add $1 per gallon to the price of gasoline and 5 to 6 cents per kilowatt-hour to the price of electricity. Given the amount of oil, gas and coal used in the United States in 2007, that carbon fee would yield about $600 billion per year. The resulting dividend for each adult American would be as much as $3,000 per year. As the fee rose, tipping points would be reached at which various carbon-free energies and carbon-saving technologies would become cheaper than fossil fuels plus their fees. As time goes on, fossil fuel use would collapse.
A longer and "saltier" version is available here.

On the other hand, Paul Krugman, who had an op-ed piece in the same edition favoring cap and trade, has a blog piece that strongly disagrees with Hansen.

Sunday, December 06, 2009

App Store Is a Game Changer for Apple and Cellphone Industry

The NYTimes.com has a feature article on the iPhone App store.
“Apple changed the view of what you can do with that small phone in your back pocket,” says Katy Huberty, a Morgan Stanley analyst. “Applications make the smartphone trend a revolutionary trend — one we haven’t seen in consumer technology for many years.”

Ms. Huberty likens the advent of the App Store and the iPhone to AOL’s pioneering role in driving broad-based consumer adoption of the Internet in the 1990s. She also draws comparisons to ways in which laptops have upended industry assumptions about consumer preferences and desktop computing. But, she notes, something even more profound may now be afoot.

“The iPhone is something different. It’s changing our behavior,” she says. “The game that Apple is playing is to become the Microsoft of the smartphone market.” …

The App Store’s success — as much a surprise to Apple as it has been to competitors — has given rise to a new digital ecosystem. …

The way the [cellphone] industry once operated, “Each handset company would come up with its latest iterations and maybe have the hottest device of the season or not,” says Ms. Huberty, the Morgan Stanley analyst. “Enter apps into the equation, and that changes. It goes from being a product cycle game to a platform game.”

“People will look back on the iPhone as a turning point in the industry,” says Craig Moffett, a telecom analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein. “The iPhone will be remembered as the first true handheld computer.”
Why did I bother to quote all that? What strikes me as interesting is that this is an example of a significant development in the world that occurred (is occurring) (a) while we are watching and (b) without anyone planning for it to happen.

As the article says, "The App Store’s success [is] as much a surprise to Apple as it has been to competitors." Apple didn't (apparently) launch the App store intending to turn the iPhone into the first handheld computer. That's probably not quite true because in some sense it did. It intentionally made the iPhone a handheld computer. But somehow it didn't realize how important doing so would be. Presumably, Apple thought it would just make the iPhone a more attractive phone—not that it would make the iPhone a handheld computer that (also) has the ability to make telephone calls.

Apple had experience with iTunes, and it knew that it could make money by selling items through its iTunes store. So why not do the same thing with iPhone apps. But apparently no one anticipated the extent to which people would come up with applications that would run on the iPhone and that people would want to use.

A personal confession, I haven't downloaded anything. I can't think of an app I care enough about to download. In fact I'm disappointed with the iPhone as a computer. It doesn't have cut-and-paste (as we all know), its keyboard is terrible, and its web browsing is frustratingly slow.

But my lack of enthusiasm doesn't seem to generalize. Apple created a new software platform—one that's different from other software platforms in that it can fit into one's pocket. That was good enough.

So once again the world changed—while we were watching—but in a way that was relatively unobtrusive to most of us and that just slipped into our culture. It is only with articles like these that we are telling ourselves how significant this change actually is.

Saturday, December 05, 2009

Zombie Creatures: What Happens When Animals Are Possessed by a Parasitic Puppet Master?


For Halloween, Scientific American featured parasites that "control" their hosts. This picture shows a wasp "enslaving" a cockroach.
In a well-documented example of external parasite control, an emerald cockroach wasp (Ampulex compressa) enslaves a much larger cockroach (Periplaneta americana). The wasp injects a neurotoxin into the cockroach's brain. This toxin kills off the roach's ability to control its own movement but doesn't paralyze it entirely. The wasp is then able to grasp the roach's antenna and lead it into a nest before laying an egg in the live cockroach's body.

Permanently incapacitated, the cockroach is unable to escape and is eaten from the inside by the growing wasp larva.