A couple of analyses highlight the contributions of the United Auto Workers PAC to proponents of the auto bailout. The Center for Responsive Politics released an analysis of Senate votes and UAW PAC contributions last week. Yesterday, the conservative Business & Media Institute released their own analysis of UAW PAC giving and the alignment of auto bailout support. After calculating the 2008 UAW PAC giving and matching it up to votes on bailout, I found some differences with the BMI report.

In my review of 2008 UAW PAC contributions, I found that the PAC contributed a total of $1,111,250 to 182 lawmakers who voted "Yes" on the auto bailout. The UAW PAC also contributed a total of $111,500 to 18 lawmakers voting "No". (Also, seven lawmakers who did not vote received a total of $32,000.)

On average, however, there is little difference between the Yes and No camps in the dollar amount of the PAC contributions received. Lawmakers who received UAW PAC contributions and voted No, received slightly more money on average than those receiving UAW PAC money and voting Yes. On average the 18 No votes received $6,194, the 182 Yes votes received $6,106 on average.

Of all 207 lawmawkers receiving campaign contributions from the UAW PAC in 2008, only two are Republicans (Sen. Arlen Specter, voted Yes; Rep. Frank LoBiondo, voted No). Even more so than voting preference, the UAW's PAC contributions align with the long time union preference for Democrats.

UAW PAC contributions are definitely a strong predictive force in how a member will vote, but partisan identification appears to be a stronger force here.

(All data comes from the Center for Responsive Politics.)

The auto bailout vote split along both partisan and regional lines, which in turn exposed the regional rivalry of Southern-located foreign auto plants and Northern-located domestic auto plants. The Clarion-Ledger posted an interactive map to their web site showing the locations of foreign and domestic auto plants in Southern states. The votes of the Southern senators with foreign auto plants in their respective states reflects this, as Kagro X shows at Congress Matters:

Kentucky: McConnell, yes on banks, no on cars; Bunning, no on both. Texas: Hutchison, yes on banks, no on cars; Cornyn, yes on banks, not voting on cars. Georgia: Chambliss and Isakson both yes on banks, no on cars. Louisiana: Vitter, no on both; Landrieu, no on banks, yes on cars. Tennessee: Alexander, yes on banks, not voting on cars; Corker, yes on banks, no on cars.

Similarly, we can look at the Northern manufacturing states (represented by at least one Republican) and see a similar effect:

Kansas: Sam Brownback (R-KS) voted No on banks, Yes on cars. Pat Roberts (R-KS) voted No on banks, No on cars.

Missouri: Kit Bond (R-MO) voted Yes on banks, Yes on cars. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) voted Yes on banks, Yes on cars.

Indiana: Evan Bayh (D-IN) voted Yes on banks, Yes on cars. Richard Lugar (R-IN) voted Yes on banks, Yes on cars.

Pennsylvania: Arlen Specter (R-PA) voted Yes on banks, Yes on cars. Bob Casey (D-PA) voted Yes on banks, Yes on cars.

Ohio: George Voinovich (R-OH) voted Yes on banks, Yes on cars. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) voted Yes on banks, Yes on cars.

Both Republican Maine senators voted for the auto bailout, although they don't hail from a Rust Belt state.

Also, some interesting information from the Center for Responsive Politics: while auto union money went heavily to those voting Yes, total auto industry contributions (automakers, manufacturers, dealers, and unions) still favored those voting No.

Lawmakers supporting the auto bailout received more in campaign contributions on average from the auto industry and auto unions, according to a new study from the Center for Responsive Politics. The study shows that lawmakers voting in the affirmative received $87,063.44 on average, while lawmakers voting against the measure received $80,756.80 on average (the data covers all contributions from 1989 to present).

There are a lot of caveats to the study, which shows union contributions going heavily to Democrats and automotive industry contributions going to Republicans, even those voting “No”. Partisan sensibilities appear to reign supreme. Another factor in the voting seen in the House is geographical location and location of domestic vs. foreign auto plants in a given district. Still, campaign contributions are a good predictive force in determining voting behavior:

"Certainly there are many factors that influence a lawmaker's vote on legislation like this, which has so many implications, but campaign contributions over the last two decades did serve as a guide for how members of Congress were going to vote this week," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. "As with votes in October to bail out Wall Street, those politicians willing to lend corporations billions of taxpayer dollars were more likely to have collected money of their own from the industries crying out for assistance.

The switchers (Dems voting “No,” Republicans voting “Yes”) still remain the most interesting voters on this bill. Here are some key points on the Democrats voting No:

• 12 out of 20 represent Southern states
• 10 out of 20 represent districts containing a foreign automotive factory
• 12 out of 20 represent states containing a foreign automotive factory
• Received on average 44% percent less in contributions from the automotive industries and unions than Democrats voting “Yes” ($54,951.30 vs. $79,303.21)

And the Republicans voting Yes:

• 24 out of 32 represent Northern states
• 19 out of 32 represent districts containing a Big Three automotive factory
• 28 out of 32 represent states containing a Big Three automotive factory
• Received on average 62% percent more in contributions from the automotive industries and unions than Republicans voting “No” ($136,777.44 vs. $84,197.53)

As mentioned in the previous post on voting during the auto bailout, many of the Democrats voting against the bill represent districts that house foreign automotive plants, the potential benficiaries of the collapse of the Big Three. In this post, I'll look at the existence of Big Three plants in the districts of the 32 Republicans who voted for the auto bailout. These numbers are a bit more definitive than the data on Democrats voting "No":

Name	State	Plant in District	Location/Plant in State
Barton, Joe	TX	No	Plant in State
Buyer, Steve	IN	Yes	Bedford, IN
Camp, Dave	MI	Yes	Michigan
Capito, Shelley Moore	WV	Yes	Martinsville, WV
Castle, Mike	DE	Yes	Wilmington, DE
Ehlers, Vern	MI	Yes	Michigan
English, Phil	PA	No	Plant in State
Frelinghuysen, Rodney	NJ	No
Hoekstra, Pete	MI	Yes	Michigan
Hunter, Duncan	CA	No	Plant in State
King, Pete	NY	No	Plant in State
Knollenberg, Joe	MI	Yes	Michigan
LaHood, Ray	IL	No	Plant in State
LaTourette, Steve	OH	No	Plants operate in adjacent district
Manzullo, Don	IL	No	Plant in State
McCotter, Thaddeus	MI	Yes	Michigan
McCrery, Jim	LA	Yes	Shreveport, LA
McHugh, John	NY	Yes	Massena, NY
Miller, Candice	MI	Yes	Michigan
Murphy, Tim	PA	Yes	Pittsburgh, PA (represents suburbs of city)
Porter, Jon	NV	No	Plant in State
Ramstad, Jim	MN	Yes	Minneapolis, MN (represents suburbs of city)
Regula, Ralph	OH	Yes	Mansfield, OH
Rogers, Mike	MI	Yes	Michigan
Ryan, Paul	WI	Yes	Janesville, WI
Smith, Chris	NJ	No
Souder, Mark	IN	Yes	Roanoke, IN
Upton, Fred	MI	Yes	Michigan
Walsh, Jim	NY	No	Plant in State
Young, Don	AK	No

Of the 32 Republicans voting for the auto bailout, 19 of them represent districts containing a Big Three plant (59.4%). When including lawmakers that represent states with Big Three plants in them that number jumps to 28 out of 32 (88%).

Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted on the Big Three bailout plan (see it here). The proposal passed by a vote of 237-170, with most Democrats supporting and most Republicans opposing. Considering the recent spate of articles linking bailout opposing Senators to the foreign automotive industry (see this Boston Globe piece in particular), I figured it would be worth it to take a look at the Democrats who voted "No" on the bailout. Do they hail from districts or states that house foreign automotive factories? In their case, the verdict is split:

Name	State	Plant in District	Location/Plant in State
Boyd, Allen	FL	No
Butterfield, G.K.	GA	Yes	Black Creek, NC; Northhampton County, NC
Cardoza, Dennis	CA	No	Plants in state
Childers, Travis	MS	Yes	Blue Springs, MS
Cooper, Jim	TN	Yes	Smyrna, TN
Davis, Artur	AL	Yes	Hope Hull, AL
Filner, Bob	CA	No	Plant operates in state
Giffords, Gabrielle	AZ	No
Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie	SD	No
Kagen, Steve	WI	No
Marshall, Jim	GA	Yes	West Point, GA
Matheson, Jim	UT	No
McIntyre, Mike	NC	No	Plants operate in state
Mitchell, Harry	AZ	No
Peterson, Collin	MN	No
Rahall, Nick	WV	No	Plants operate in state
Rodriguez, Ciro	TX	Yes	El Paso, Texas pursuing foreign auto contract
Shuler, Heath	NC	Yes	Buncombe County, NC
Stark, Pete	CA	Yes	Fremont, CA
Walz, Tim	MN	No

Of the twenty Democratic lawmakers voting "No," ten represent districts with foreign automotive plants (this includes Rep. Ciro Rodriguez who represents El Paso, TX, which is actively courting foreign auto companies to build a plant in the city). If the lawmakers representing states with foreign plants are included that number jumps twelve out of twenty, or 60%.

While constituent concerns may trump party identification in this case, these lawmakers may simply be opposed to bailouts. Twelve of the twenty lawmakers voted against the financial bailout and the auto bailout. Of the eight lawmakers voting for the financial bailout and against the auto bailout four of them represent districts or states that house foreign auto plants.

More on Republicans voting "Yes" later.