Guess they are trying to balance out 1996? Yeah,  Right!??

Eleanor,

NAR has contributed nearly $2 million to various campaigns so far in the current election cycle.  And since 1989, they have provided over $32 million to various political candidates.

Eric--I have visited this website before...It is interesting to see who NAR supports. Nice easy to understand graphics so that everyone knows who is supported.

Haven't seen this site before, Eric. Interesting data. Thanks for sharing this.

Jeff

Teri,

The analysis on that site says that NAR makes an effort to contribute to both parties "equally", but that hasn't been historically accurate according to the graph. 

It looks like NAR was contributing more to Republican candidates when the good times were still a-rollin'.  And now that the market has run aground, perhaps they're changing course and looking to Democratic candidates for change.

Jeff, there's lots of fascinating data on that site about lobbying and who gets the money. 

I guess influence-peddling is the world's oldest profession.

..... second oldest profession :)

But sersiously, this is interesting info.

Stewart, I forgot.  Agriculture is the world's oldest profession.

:)

Interesting information Eric. Thanks for posting.

Rich, I found it curious that I had to go to another site (not NAR) to obtain this information.

Rather than contributing to the Republicans when the good times were still a'rollin, NAR contributed more to Democrats in prior cycles, then started investing in Republicans just as their star was ascending, now they have shifted more in favor of Democrats as they will be the power in the legislature for the foreseeable. As Dick Gaylord is fond of saying, you make your friends before you need them and this pattern of investment clearly shows that. Their contributions to Maxine Waters ('well this liberal is all about socializing oil companies') and Laura Richardson, who walked away from a house in Sacramento after her Federal election, bother me more. I hate to have my money going to the likes of those 2, but I guess in the bigger picture...

The contributions to GOP candidates have been higher since the 1996 election cycle.  The presumption, until recently, was that a GOP majority would be best for business. 

"Best for business" hasn't turned out to be the case, and NAR is following what they perceive as the winds of change.

I watched the Wisconsin REALTORS' Association throw money behind Mark Green in the last gubernatorial election, only to see Green lose by a huge majority.  Bush awarded him a "consolation prize" by sending him to Tanzania as an ambassador.

It pains me to see my state association send money to someone like that.