NAR increases political clout
Published December 10, 2004
The National Association of Realtors increased its fundraising, campaign contributing and political participation records during the 2004 election season. Here's a snippet from Realtor.org:
The National Association of Realtors® spent a record total of nearly $13 million during the 2003-2004 election cycle, including dues-funded political advocacy activities for selected candidates. The REALTORS® Political Action Committee (RPAC) raised a record $7 million in PAC receipts and distributed a record $4.2 million in direct contributions during the past cycle, making it once again America's largest political action committee in terms of direct contributions to federal candidates.
In addition, RPAC supported 439 candidates running for U.S. House and Senate seats - 424 out of the 439 were victorious. More than 400,000 Realtors, including myself, contributed to RPAC this year. Realtors also raised $2.5 million in corporate contributions for NAR's Opportunity Race Program (registration required). With this kind of influence, the American dream of homeownership will likely continue to be alive and well on Capitol Hill.
- NAR increases political clout
- Published: December 10, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Politics
- Writer: Mr. Real Estate
- Mr. Real Estate's BC Writer page
- Mr. Real Estate's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
That's an interesting false assumption. There are a number of Realtors who are directly involved with environmental preservation and conservation efforts. New development is wonderful, but we must always balance it out in order to ensure the protection and preservation of our environment.
What pristine wilderness? That was destroyed by farmers more than 150 years ago.
Actually, the kind of development that converts farm ground into residential housing brings trees and green space where trees were considered a nuisnace to the average farmer. Farm ground is rapidly being converted here in Central Indiana, and 10-year comparisons on aerial photos is startling. Where nary a tree grew where the corn and beans were cultivated, now there are hundreds of trees beginning to mature.
Do you eat leaves for dinner?
I'm all for protecting the environment, but we all have to eat. Plus, residential housing may bring trees, but it also brings cars, sewage, landfills, and golf courses [a.k.a., pesticides/chemicals that seep into the environment so that a bunch of guys can stroll around, drink beer, and avoid spending time with their families on the weekend].
I eat lettuce for dinner in my salad, but those leaves are on my plate thanks to our nation's wonderful farmers.
Environmentalists, rather than complaining, using the most whacko statements I've ever seen (i.e., "evil" farmers killed the trees to grow food for folks to eat), mind you, would be smarter to just form a corporation that's not for profit or a partnership of some sort and buy the land they wish to preserve.
People here in Florida do it all the time. I haven't brokered any such purchases, myself, but then again, luxury waterfront homes and condos are my specialty...
Cheers.
bhw, Do I eat leaves for dinner... No, of course not. The great thing about the evolution of farming has been the great gain in productivity such that farm land can be converted into other uses.
Mr. Real Estate: Facts are facts. Where woodlands were destroyed, it was generally done to clear the land for farming. That's not a complaint, just a reporting of fact, and not describing farmers as evil. I'm glad it was done in order to feed the country. Land usage changes, and I am not opposed to changes.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/23138)
Well that's depressing news. The dream of preserving our remaining pristine wilderness is dead and buried.