Comments on: Major League Baseball likes Democrats more than Republicans

By: Mark J. Goluskin

Mark J. Goluskin — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 04:57:01 +0000

BTW, I really like your site. Am linking it to mine!

By: Mark J. Goluskin

Mark J. Goluskin — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 04:43:57 +0000

I am not all that surprised that the owners seem to want to pay off the Democrats over the Republicans.

But, laugh all you want, a solution would be to name George W. Bush commissioner when his presidential term ends. He was the ONLY owner to oppose the abomination that has become interleague play.

Wonder why major league baseball is so screwed up?
Because of the most incompetent owner moving “up” to commissioner, Bud Selig.

By: dominick

dominick — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:45:11 +0000

Perhaps the discrepancy also has to do with underlying political opinion. Republicans, in general, are not terribly big fans of antitrust laws in the first place, and it is rare that calls to “revoke the exemption” come from conservative Republicans. Why would you need to spend a lot of money greasing the palms of people who are inclined to leave you alone?

Better to spend your money ingratiating yourself to the people most likely to throw around threats and who are naturally more inimical to your interests. Democrats don’t like big profits, big business, and certainly aren’t big fans of monopolies (which MLB clearly is). Better to pay into the coffers of those who might be inclined, absent the donation, to make your life more difficult.

By: Dexter Westbrook

Dexter Westbrook — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 22:11:52 +0000

One thing that wasn’t mentioned — MLB’s congressional lobbyist, Lucy Calautti, is married to U.S. Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and used to work as chief of staff to U.S. Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D.

This is a factor to consider, I believe, in looking at MLB’s PAC giving.

By: Vince

Vince — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:13:53 +0000

It is also entirely possible that the powers that be in the MLB are paying what amounts to Protection Money from the Dems, or am I way off base here?

By: EJHill

EJHill — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:14:12 +0000

In the old days the economics of baseball probably would have dictated that the owners would have been Republicans and the underpaid players Democrats, while today it’s just the opposite. The players are the prime targets for excessive taxation (e.g., California going after income taxes on visiting teams) while the owners are always seeking higher taxes to fund their government subsidized places of business.

Baseball is a mixed bag of public and private ownership of stadiums (the new owner of the Cubs is trying to pawn Wrigley Field onto the tax payers of Illinois) but even the privately built ones demand significant public financing of surrounding infrastructure and in some cases the heavy hand of eminent domain to claim the needed land. Which party is more likely to be aligned with these kind of interests?

By: Dave from Saint Paul

Dave from Saint Paul — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:08:19 +0000

Dave, I thought of that several times.

If Democrats in Congress can go after Big Oil and CEO pay as excess, why do they turn the other way at lunatic sports salaries?

Especially when you consider that the tax payers fund most of the stadiums, which in turn subsidize these salaries.

By: Dave from Saint Paul

Dave from Saint Paul — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:04:44 +0000

From the headline I had one theory, but it may not play out from the details, but … Big Baseball demands big bucks to build stadiums.

Could it be they want to get favors from Democrats for corporate welfare to build urban stadiums in Democratic towns? (for the record, I support many of them, including Miller park and the new Twins stadium).

In Mpls, the younger Polhad joined several prominent wealthy Minnesota Democrats, taking out ads that call for higher taxes overall.

By: george

george — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:36:42 +0000

Jocks - unless they are beholden to identity politics - tend to be Republicans or centrist Dems. The life lessons of playing competitive team sports make it pretty inevitable.

On the other hand, it shouldn’t be that shocking that the kind of dweebs who ulimately end up owning sports franchises would have their world view shaped differently. I’m not altogether sure why anyone is still under the illusion that the political divide in this country is organized around the haves vs. the have nots. 1

It may be the case in terms of rhetoric but certainly not in reality.

By: Steven

Steven — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:08:06 +0000

But I thought rich fat cats (MLB Owners) all supported the GOP!?