50 Richest Members of Congress

FYI

http://innovation.cqpolitics.com/cq-rollcall/richest_members_of_congress_2008

Corporate Democrats?

That hardly makes her a corporatist.

:shrug:

I have a blue dog as my rep. McCaskill is not a blue dog.

McCaskill qualifying her support of a public option.

http://www.news-leader.com/article/20090901/NEWS01/909010339/1007/news01

I like McCaskill, but all our representatives are a mixed bag; most do a few things we disagree with or would do differently.

1 John Kerry (Mass.) $215.41 $47.86 $167.55 $231.88 -$64.33 -27.74% 1 Senate Democrat 1985
2 Darrell Issa (Calif.) 164.70 0.00 164.70 160.62 4.08 2.54 3 House Republican 2001
3 Jane Harman (Calif.) 112.13 0.00 112.13 225.96 -113.83 -50.38 2 House Democrat 2001
4 Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.) 85.70 5.25 80.45 80.40 0.05 0.06 4 Senate Democrat 1985
5 Mark Warner (Va.) 75.77 3.40 72.37 90.80 -18.44 -20.30 Senate Democrat 2009
6 Jared Polis (Colo.) 76.14 5.14 71.00 97.62 -26.62 -27.27 House Democrat 2009
7 Vern Buchanan (Fla.) 85.39 35.60 49.79 65.49 -15.70 -23.98 6 House Republican 2007
8 Frank Lautenberg (N.J.) 48.88 0.50 48.38 55.33 -6.95 -12.56 7 Senate Democrat 1982-2001, 2003
9 Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) 43.94 1.00 42.94 52.34 -9.40 -17.96 8 Senate Democrat 1992
10 Harry Teague (N.M.) 41.63 1.00 40.63 6.26 34.37 549.04 House Democrat 2009

significantly during their tenure in congress.

I am sure there are many who have made many $$$$$$$ legitimately - real estate sales, inheritance, etc.

But . . . I would sure like to know about the others.

Of course, congress would have to sanction such an investigation, so we know it could never happen.

part of being considered is how much money you can raise.
It is not uncommon for candidates to have put their house
up as collateral. Otherwise, borrow against their home.
No matter how good a candidate might be, if they cannot
prove they can raise funds--forget it.

Point 2: Being Rich can be an advantage. If you have a
rich candidate who really believes in helping the less
fortunate, they are in the best position. If they choose
they cannot be bought by Business Special Interests Groups.
They have their own money. Being Rich is not automatically
a bad thing. This is why it is important to really know
the candidate and where he or she stands not just on one
issue but a multitude of issues.

Unless you are a rarity like Obama who raised it himself...big time! Explains all these politicians had a better shot at getting elected -- they had money to finance their campaign while others who werent as fortunate (and maybe even better candidates) just fell to the way side. It's a shame more candidates arent like Obama who inspired people to donate.

and less and less for the House because of the cost of the campaigns.

During the last 10 years, Democrats have been choosing their candidates based on their ability to finance their own campaigns (Cantwell, Edwards, Warner, ...).

Because if it doesn't, I find Kerry's spot at the top of the list very surprising ... kind of shocking, actually. Doesn't look like McCain's figure includes Cindy's loot.

Kerry is worth more than Ted Kennedy was???

Wow!

I am a proud Pennsylvanian ... I don't think there's a single person from the Keystone State on that list!!!

Dems need to face it - corpmedia and their fascists masters have wanted Kerry pushed out of DC since he uncovered BCCI.

Too many Dems still haven't processed what that means and why. Hurts their brains.

There have been links to more detail in the past. The Senate disclosure has to include her assets. Kerry himself is wealthy having inherited money when his parents died. (From memory it was in the $5 - $10 million range)

Both Kerry's have said that her property and money will pass to the 3 Heinz sons.

which isn't his: http://www.rollcall.com/features/Guide-to-Congress_2009/guide/38181-1.html?page=1#johnkerry

"You want to live like a Republican, Vote for the Democrats" -- Harry Truman

Does not being among the richest mean any Republican is going to support the public option?

The media always pull out this list when they want to create the false impression that people's wealth is a factor.

When Kerry's bill to withdraw from Iraq came up for a vote in 2006 and after the 2006 elections when the Dems came around to that position, the first thing the media did was release a bogus list claiming Democrats were profiting from war investments. A closer look revealed that the investments were in soda, MicroSoft, etc.

The media is full of shit.

The old adage "Money is the root of all evil." did not stick around all these centuries for nothing. :evilgrin:

Max and Kent see this as a way of getting back at the administration. Funny thing is most on that
list supports single payer or public option. Well, with the exception of John McCain and the
Republicans.

This is an attack on Kerry, Rockefeller et al.

This is the way status quo fights back, you have to be there to understand whats going on, like
someone once said, this is a CLASS fight, a fight between RICH and POOR.

I will not pay attention to this because it is another way of redirecting focus.

Most of those listed have combined assets with their spouse, so, this is hogwash.

"I will not pay attention to this because it is another way of redirecting focus."

Well said.

And for some strange reason these 'lists' are always deceptively worded and always have progressive lawmakers targeted.

115 mil in assets 100 mil in liabilities.

didn't do that well last year? Just guessing...