That’s one Hell of a ROI. And in case you hadn’t figured it out, we’re talking about lobbying costs to score bailout bucks. The Wall Street Journal reports GM’s ’08 spend on D.C. power brokering totaled $13.1m. (The $3.3.m spend covers the period of bailout begging.) That’s down from ’07’s $14.3m, but times are tough. Hence the bailout. Anyway, GM spokespinner Greg Martin assured the WSJ that no taxpayers were hurt during the buttering-up of federal legislators. “Lobbying is the transparent and effective way that GM has its voice heard on critical policy issues… that companies should not be required to forfeit if they receive federal funding,” Martin said, endearing himself to taxpayers throughout the country. Martin added that no funds lent from the Treasury would be used for lobbying. Huh? I thought GM promised the SEC yesterday not to cook the books. I mean, from what “ring fenced fund” does the lobbying money come from, pray tell? Ready to listen a bit more of that song “Fool on the Hill?’ Then let’s talk about the recently nationalized GMAC…
“Lobbying spending by GMAC LLC, GM’s auto- and mortgage-lending arm, more than tripled to $4.6 million in 2008 from 2007.” Geez, I wonder why that is? Does that fact that the Treasury department bent the rules so they could become a bank, and then threw $6b of your hard-earned money into the pot have anything to do with it? Yes and no.
“I think it’s obvious that the increased spending on Washington-related activities was related to the environment and the restructuring that we are going through,” opined Toni Simonetti, GMAC’s vice president for global communications. Obvious, yes. And nauseating.
Anyway, Chrysler’s ROI– lobbying vs. bridge loans to nowhere– clocked-in at $3.1m (for the last two financial quarters) on $4b. If these guys could just match this kind of financial performance for their cars and loans, they’d be all set.
To think, even imagine, that Congress will ‘run the numbers’ on the big three is living in fantasy land. This is all politics
GM being put on welfare was inevitable; it would have happened without spending a cent.
That GMAC was bailed out when buyers were getting loans, and when GM needs dealers to go out of business as part of its restructuring, was a horrible result that GMAC was able to buy very cheaply.
Same for the bailing out of worthless, no new product, horrible existing product, barely any employees Chrysler.
Also, the Detroit automakers are lucky because their lobbying money is on top of the UAW’s spending.
Why should we gripe about this now?
Defense contractors have been charging the government for their lobbying costs for decades.
Some portion of that $4.00 you spent at Starbucks paid for a lobbyist.
I’m sure Honda/Hyundai/BMW/Volvo/etc. all have lobbyists, too.
Why the selective indignation now?
Government bailouts are GM’s new target market. And yes, that is a very impressive ROI.
Too bad they couldn’t do this when they used to be a car company.
After the whipping they took in Washington by a few misinformed politcians what would you expect?
They obviously didn’t realize until it was to late that congress is clueless when it comes to the auto industry.
Paying lobbyists to provide facts from there side and attempt to counter the misinformation and blatant lies is only prudent. Albeit late.
dealmaker:
The only people more clueless about making cars than Congress are the Detroit automakers.
And the only lies I heard during the Congressional hearings were things like “we are viable”, and “this is a loan”.
Facts are the last thing that the Detroit automakers would want their lobbyists to tell Congress.
Why the selective indignation now?
Because for the taxes I have/will pay for it, I didn’t buy a car from GM, didn’t finance anything from GMAC, and I generally pull my own shots.