The Republican Party’s main House and Senate campaign committees — the N.R.C.C. and the N.R.S.C. — pulled in “a combined $1.7 million from PACs tied to more than 57 companies and industry groups,” according to CREW. Contributors included “household names like Pfizer, Intel, T-Mobile and CVS, as well as PACs tied to trade groups that represent industries as varied as real estate, mortgage banking and insurance agents.”
It seems worth noting that the head of the N.R.S.C., Senator Rick Scott of Florida, was one of eight Senate Republicans to vote to overturn the election results even after the attack on the Capitol.
Of the 147 Republicans who voted to overturn the election results, CREW found that at least 103 had benefited from corporate cash. Representative Glenn Thompson of Pennsylvania topped the list of recipients, having pulled in $44,000 from a range of corporations and industry groups, including John Deere and the National Chicken Council. Coming in at No. 2 was Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer, the Missouri Republican who reportedly threatened to create an enemies list of any companies that put him on their do-not-contribute lists. And, of course, Representative Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader, has continued to raise corporate cash for both his own campaign and his leadership PAC, albeit at far lower levels than usual.
Indeed, part of what makes the Jan. 6 dilemma so awkward for donors is that it is not merely fringe-dwelling backbenchers who have been complicit in Donald Trump’s election-fraud lies. Powerful Republican leaders have been a key part of the problem as well. Denying them contributions carries even greater risks.
The further Jan. 6 recedes from view, of course, the more that Corporate America will deem it less risky to donate than to not. As any savvy politician can tell you, the attention span of the American public is short. Without constant stoking, widespread outrage fades quickly — or is replaced by the next outrage. Just ask gun control advocates, who know too well how quickly the public, and politicians, move on from mass shootings.
Which goes a long way toward explaining why more and more industry givers already feel comfortable asking what, to many people, will sound like a totally outrageous question: Is it really fair to keep punishing congressional Republicans simply because their party attempted to undermine American democracy?