Bailout Watch 357: GM Spends $3.3m to Score $13.4b

by Robert Farago

Published: January 23rd, 2009

bailout watch 357 gm spends 3 3m to score 13 4b

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.

Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments

Join the conversation

2 of 7 comments

No_slushbox on Jan 23, 2009
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.

Like Reply
Dimitris on Jan 23, 2009
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.

Like Reply

Recent Comments

MrIcky I bet these will sell ok- as fleet vehicles. They will take on in town pick up duties for power companies when an hd with tool boxes aren't required, they will show up on any company that wants to push a 'green image' but still needs to haul ladders and such like solar and roofing. It will be a strange truck in a strange market but I bet it doesn't do too bad
2ACL If your driving and/or maintenance regimen wrecked the valves, what other horrors await me? A maintained 2.slow can be decent basic transportation, though many of the models carrying it are old enough to have age-related problems. This is impending heartbreak for anyone not intent on getting their hands dirty.
Theflyersfan If cutting costs (which usually means cheaper parts and materials) is their plan of attack, all the while dealing with millions of cars recalled and with serious quality issues, I think staying away from Ford is the best thing possible. When you hack and slash away like that, it tends to be a race to the bottom. (See: Nissan and Mitsubishi. )How about, instead, focusing on what is breaking and forcing expensive recalls and emergency service bulletins because it always costs more to fix it after the fact. And then the reputation can be improved and you can charge $100,000 for a pickup without a guilty conscience.
EBFlex Translation: “We want to lower quality even more”How about stop with the EVs that nobody wants and is a dead end road and invest that into making quality vehicles?
Jeff Agree but manufacturers in the US have discontinued manuals on most vehicles and eventually discontinue all manuals. The problem is that most vehicles made today have computers controlling most functions in vehicles. HVAC, power steering, power brakes, parking brakes, transmissions, and many other functions that were manual and now electronic. The mechanical functions were easier to repair and more reliable. The Maverick has a lot less technology than many of the newer vehicles at least you can control lights, temperature, and radio without going through a screen but compared to past vehicles I have owned it has more technology than I want or need.I am not looking forward to these recalls as a Maverick owner but I will get them taken care of. I do not like the trend toward mechanical functions that have worked well for decades being controlled through a computer function or CANBUS. It is cheaper for the automakers to buy preassembled components reducing time on the assembly line but it makes it more expensive to work on and the parts are usually more expensive. Hoovie and the Car Wizard have some good videos on the difficulty of working on most modern day vehicles and the increasing expense of replacement parts.