What I have found over time, looking at the data, is that large corporations and major businesses tend to support whichever party can deliver the goods. When power changes hands in Washington, the only change is the name on the donation checks.

In addition, the motivations for donations vary as well.

Political donations are often handed out with the idea of receiving special considerations, such as targeted tax breaks, or regulatory restrictions on the competition. The latter is often used to keep "upstart" competitors out of the picture. A large corporation can absorb regulatory dead weight much more easily than a small company. For example, a lot of independetgas stations and other businesses here in California have fallen to pollution or access regulations. I consider donations for this purpose to be reprehensible, and not part of how a market system should work.

But in some cases, it's almost self-defense. Donations designed to KEEP a politician from doing these things to you. "Protection money" if you will. This is less common, but not unknown. This is often a response to the other kind of donation by a competitor or someone else who wishes you ill.

The only one who makes out like a bandit is the politician. Both parties are guilty.

Of course, it's more complicated than that. There are companies, often those controlled by one or two people, who do consistently donate to one party or the other. There are conservative and liberal companies that are activist in nature, and not so much pragmatic.