SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
2. Select Email/Password Information.
3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.
Subscribers can find additional help here. Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
Washington, D.C., has only 0.2 percent of the U.S. population and three votes in the Electoral College but it turns out city residents, or at least a select few, have more representation in congress than it first appears. A new study from MAPLight.org, a nonpartisan, research group, shows that members of the House collectively raised about $700 million between 2005 and 2007, of which 79 percent came from outside their home districts.
Washington, which has a smaller population than any state other than Wyoming, was the source of $146,807,711, more than one-fifth of all contributions. The city and its surrounding areas “are home to scores of lobbying firms and political action committees,” the study pointed out. “For 99% of U.S. House members (418 out of 421), Washington, D.C., was among their top 5 contributing states.”
The study allows you to search the record for every member of Congress. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi raised $2.8 million from outside of her district, bringing in more from Washington ($1.15 million) than she did from the entire state of California ($935,510). Barney Frank, chairman of the House Committee of Financial Services, raised 91 percent of his money from outside his district, with seven of his top ten top contributing zip codes being in the Washington area. Overall, Democrats accounted for 19 of the top 20 spots on the list of members most dependent on money from beyond their district.
But Republicans don’t get much money from their own constituents either. House Minority Leader John Boehner raised $4.7 million, of which 91 percent came from non-constituents. His top zip code for contributions was 20005, the heart of Washington’s K Street area, where he brought in $280,000.
More from Ken Silverstein:
Commentary — November 17, 2015, 6:41 pm
The Clintons’ so-called charitable enterprise has served as a vehicle to launder money and to enrich family friends.
Flor Arely Sánchez had been in bed with a fever and pains throughout her body for three days when a July thunderstorm broke over the mountainside. She got nervous when bolts of light flashed in the sky. Lightning strikes the San Julián region of western El Salvador several times a year, and her neighbors fear storms more than they fear the march of diseases — first dengue, then chikungunya, now Zika. Flor worried about a lot of things, since she was pregnant.
Late in the afternoon, when the pains had somewhat eased, Flor thought she might go to a dammed-up bit of the river near her house to bathe. She is thirty-five and has lived in the same place all her life, where wrinkled hills are planted with corn, beans, and fruit trees. She took a towel and soap and walked out into the rain. Halfway to the river, the pains returned and overcame her. The next thing Flor remembers, she was in a room she didn’t recognize, unable to move. As she soon discovered, she was in a hospital, her ankle cuffed to the bed, and she was being investigated for abortion.
Amount of laundry an average American family of four washes in a year (in tons):
A study of female Finnish twins found that relative preference for masculine faces is largely heritable.
It was reported that visits from Buddhist priests could be purchased through Amazon in Japan, and the London Philharmonic Orchestra began streaming performances through virtual-reality headsets.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
“Matt was happy enough to sustain himself on the detritus of a world he saw as careening toward self-destruction, and equally happy to scam a government he despised. 'I’m glad everyone’s so wasteful,' he told me. 'It supports my lifestyle.'”