Last week, San Diego's own Rep. Susan Davis joined 85 other Democrats in supporting a bring-'em-home-if-you-feel-like-it Iraq war financing bill. CityBeat contacted the congresswoman's office to find out why she would do such a thing.
'The reality is opposing this bill would not end the war,' she said through spokesperson Aaron Hunter. 'Cutting off war funding today will not only impact the troops in the field, many of whom are from San Diego, but will also impact military families at home as President Bush would take funding from other sources to fund his war. I look forward to supporting measures that will end the war and will not put our troops at risk.'
To translate, she voted for the war funding because she believes Bush would divert funds away from domestic programs to keep money flowing for the war. At the same time, she argues that Bush would insist on keeping the troops overseas, even if reduced funding meant they had to hold down the insurgency armed only with pointed sticks and tin cans.
In a search for an alternative explanation, CityBeat looked through election filings to see who had been funding Davis' campaigns. The Center for Responsive Politics reports that since 2000, Davis has received $3.7 million for four congressional campaigns, including $176,400 (4 percent of the total) from the defense sector, or an average of $44,100 per election. Defense firms General Dynamics ($25,500) and General Atomics ($17,500) are in the top 20 contributors to Davis' campaigns.
Is $44,100 per election enough to sway a vote? CityBeat has no idea. But we're waiting on an answer to our follow-up question: If Davis doesn't think withholding money will stop the war, which she says is her goal, what will?
(This story was first reported on CityBeat's blog, 'Last Blog On Earth.')
-David Rolland and Eric Wolff