Some food for thought on Obama contributors

[chaz4jazz]

Just wondering why so many financial institutions and banks and brokerage houses are hot for Obama. Could it be the privatizing of Social Security? Just wondering.

BARACK OBAMA (D)
Top Contributors

Goldman Sachs $421,763
Ubs Ag $296,670
Lehman Brothers $250,630
National Amusements Inc $245,843
JP Morgan Chase & Co $243,848
Sidley Austin LLP $226,491
Citigroup Inc $221,578
Exelon Corp $221,517
Skadden, Arps Et Al $196,420
Jones Day $181,996
Harvard University $172,324
Citadel Investment Group $171,798
Time Warner $155,383
Morgan Stanley $155,196
Google Inc $152,802
University of California $143,029
Jenner & Block $136,565
Kirkland & Ellis $134,738
Wilmerhale Llp $119,245
Credit Suisse Group $118,250

[Occam Bandage]

1. Those same institutions give similar amounts--many even more--to Sen Clinton.

DLA Piper $471,750
Goldman Sachs $413,361
Morgan Stanley $362,700
Citigroup Inc $350,895
Lehman Brothers $241,870
JP Morgan Chase & Co $214,880
EMILY's List $213,266
National Amusements Inc $210,010
Kirkland & Ellis $179,676
Greenberg Traurig Llp $177,800
Skadden, Arps et al $167,796
Merrill Lynch $165,042
Cablevision Systems $145,313
Time Warner $144,977
Microsoft Corp $143,459
Bear Stearns $141,835
Latham & Watkins $138,598
Patton Boggs $137,200
Ernst & Young $126,865
PricewaterhouseCoopers $121,939

[Bake]

5. Why is it that the first thing Obama supporters do when asked a question

is point to Sen. Clinton?

Is this what BHO means by "new kind of politics?" Sounds like the same old same old to me.

Bake

[Occam Bandage]

11. Because it's a handy way of deflating the implicit argument, unless OP is suggesting

that Sen. Clinton wants to privatize social security.

[Bake]

18. What it is, is a handy way of ducking the question.

If you tried to do that in a deposition or on the witness stand, there's no way in hell I'd let you get away with it.

But then, this is politics, not reality.

Bake

[Occam Bandage]

20. What question?

[Bake]

23. Why BHO's getting several million from the investment bankers.

That's the question. But you knew that already.

Bake

[Occam Bandage]

24. Because employees of investment bankers always donate large sums to candidates.

They have a lot of money to throw around, and like to back winning candidates. Obama and Clinton were neck-and-neck for much of the race, and they're neck-and-neck in investment-banking funding.

But you knew that.

[griffi94]

22. i've noticed that too

don't say anything about obama no matter how bland...because clinton is worse...

[Occam Bandage]

25. It's not a matter of "Clinton is worse." This is non-problematic.

[GOTV]

29. Ignoring the feeble generalization, a question was appropriate because your point was poorly made

Your question claimed banks were hot for Obama, but without Hillarys numbers we can't know if what your postulate is true. If it's not then the question is moot.

[Bake]

34. It wasn't my question.

It was just an observation in response to the non-response to the original question.

Bake

[NashVegas]

41. Because "I Know You Are, But What Am I"

Is the unofficial sub-theme.

[RazBerryBeret]

50. ummm....

I think that was a way to portray that the contributions in question are not out of the ordinary...in showing the contributions to the other campaign, it shows that this is normal, I think it's called evidence...or a counter argument.

[sellitman]

2. I went to his web site

and looked for this platform.

I couldn't find it.

Any help would be appreciated.

[GOTV]

30. Here you go

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

[sellitman]

36. Yes but he said he was against privatizing SS.

That is what I am saying.

I can maneuver the internet fine thank you.

[GOTV]

54. Sorry, I read "THIS platform" as "HIS platform". No offense meant. n/t

[Deep13]

3. Who are they donating to?

Corporations cannot contribute to candidates and individuals are limited to something like $2200.

[chaz4jazz]

8. I don't know - check it out

<http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638>

[thevoiceofreason]

12. When you donate and give your name

Agencies can track down where you work. Some of these "compilers" will also add a spouse's donations to the company of their spouse. Sometimes they even get double counted -- depends on who is doing the work. These donations are by individuals who happen to work for these companies. Each of these companies have many good liberal democrats who happen to be financially successful. (They probably don't even mind being called elitist).

[madrchsod]

4. add all those up from both camps

and they are not close to what both candidates have raised by going to individual contributers. these guys are not going to "buy the president" they buy senate and house members to do their bidding

[chaz4jazz]

6. Mmmmhmmm

And Haliburton didn't get Bush's attention with its huge contributions?

[Occam Bandage]

15. No, Halliburton got Bush's attention with its former CEO being VP.

[liberalnurse]

7. OMG!

Yes, he is going to sell us all out to the highest bidder!

Where is Al Gore? He need to also confront this puppet, expose the deception now.

[Occam Bandage]

13. Those numbers are almost identical to Clinton's fundraising numbers from the same sources. Is she

also going to "sell us out?"

Clinton's top donor list:
DLA Piper $471,750
Goldman Sachs $413,361
Morgan Stanley $362,700
Citigroup Inc $350,895
Lehman Brothers $241,870
JP Morgan Chase & Co $214,880
EMILY's List $213,266
National Amusements Inc $210,010
Kirkland & Ellis $179,676
Greenberg Traurig Llp $177,800
Skadden, Arps et al $167,796
Merrill Lynch $165,042
Cablevision Systems $145,313
Time Warner $144,977
Microsoft Corp $143,459
Bear Stearns $141,835
Latham & Watkins $138,598
Patton Boggs $137,200
Ernst & Young $126,865
PricewaterhouseCoopers $121,939

[Arugula Latte]

19. Hey, come on. When it's about Hillary, it Doesn't Count.

[Johnny__Motown]

9. Harvard University is a Bank ?

[Alexander]

10. Bandwagoning. People like to back a winner.

Obama might not do a single thing for these contributors, but people (and companies) like to bet on the winning horse to hedge their bets.

[Connie_Corleone]

14. Because some of us happen to work at those places.

[onenote]

16. because smart, successful people like what they see in the candidate?

The contributions you list are not being made by those institutions, they are being made by people who work for those institutions -- anyone from a senior partner to an administrative assistant. They are, as a group, more successful and more highly educated, than the citizenry in general. And they like what they see. They also like Hillary, and give to her quite a bit as well.

Goldman Sachs employees have given $413,000 to HRC, $421,000 to Obama, and only $85,000 to McCain. Should I thus conclude that McCain is less likely to propose privatizing social security than either HRC or Obama?

Or should I conclude that the OP is just silly?

[indimuse]

17. I 'm hearing more and more about this ...good wondering!

thx..

[NightWatcher]

21. now be fair and show Hillary's contributors, or at least LINK to your info

this is baseless, onesided garbage

[Occam Bandage]

26. It's OpenSecrets.com. Hillary's contributors are identical:

DLA Piper $471,750
Goldman Sachs $413,361
Morgan Stanley $362,700
Citigroup Inc $350,895
Lehman Brothers $241,870
JP Morgan Chase & Co $214,880
EMILY's List $213,266
National Amusements Inc $210,010
Kirkland & Ellis $179,676
Greenberg Traurig Llp $177,800
Skadden, Arps et al $167,796
Merrill Lynch $165,042
Cablevision Systems $145,313
Time Warner $144,977
Microsoft Corp $143,459
Bear Stearns $141,835
Latham & Watkins $138,598
Patton Boggs $137,200
Ernst & Young $126,865
PricewaterhouseCoopers $121,939

[dailykoff]

32. Not identical.

No UC for Hillary for one thing, no Emily's clusterbomb list for Obama, etc.

[Occam Bandage]

33. Yes, and the contributions from banks are sometimes off by a few percent. Totally different.

[Radical Activist]

27. They give to any and every candidate with a shot at winning.

They want to maintain access. It doesn't matter how the candidate feels about issues.

[kdpeters]

28. "Is your mother a whore?"

What? I'm not saying she's a whore. I'm just wondering out loud if she's a whore. All I'm saying is that reasonable people who have banged your mother for money can disagree.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/14/jon-stewarts-hilarious-look-at-the-use-of-the-question-mark/


Is that you Mr. Cavuto? Just wondering. :-)

[dailykoff]

31. "University of California $143,029 "

Interesting. I'd call one more reason to vote Obama. :shrug:

[anigbrowl]

35. Let's see a link

So we can compare donations to all candidates and draw objective conclusions.

[high density]

37. Yeah because privatizing social security is a core pillar of Obama's platform

I guess?? :freak:

Maybe they think a Democrat can handle the economy better.

[KAZ]

38. I think these are contributions from people who work...

...at these companies. Not the companies themselves.

Something tells me you knew that.

[jackson_dem]

40. Just like everyone else. Using that logic McCain isn't getting corporate cash

Obama and Clinton are both waist deep in corporate money, but this is what we are left with. We had Edwards...

[KAZ]

42. Sorry, you are lying. You have to declare the company ..

.. you work for when you personally donate. That's what these numbers represent. If you have evidence that said companies coerced, paid for, or instructed, these donations, then present it. Otherwise, fuck off liar.

[jackson_dem]

48. Calm down. The myth of Obama being corporate free remains intact on DU

Yes, corporations can't directly donate. If you use that to claim Obama doesn't get corporate contributions then that perverse logic holds that no one, including McCain and Hillary, gets corporate cash.

I know, I know. Employees, including executives and bundlers, of Goldman Sachs are merely interesting in good government. :rofl:

If you want to know how corporate cash works with Obama google "Exelon Obama".

[KAZ]

49. My post above, and below stands. And shove your bundlers

innuendo. That has already been debunked. You do nothing but harm to your candidate, and since I'm an Obama supporter, keep posting.

[KAZ]

47. Where's your reply asshole?

Oh,and see ProSense's post below.

[Eric J in MN]

51. John McCain is getting money from business PACs

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00006424&cycle=2008
McCain got $276,900 from business PACs.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008
Obama got $3,250 from business PACs.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008
Hillary Clinton $304,408 got from business PACs


Figures through December 31, 2007.

[apocalypsehow]

39. Such touching "concern".

n/t

[Marie26]

43. Because he's pro-finance.

Obama belongs to The Hamilton Project, after all.

http://firedoglake.com/2008/02/13/the-hamilton-project-same-corporatist-whine-in-new-dlc-vessels/

[ProSense]

44. Link:

HOW TO READ THIS CHART: This chart lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

link

Obama's money comes from individuals who work at those companies:

Individual contributions $101,429,472 99%

PAC contributions $25 0%

[yourguide]

46. And again, another smear debunked

Thanks for the research and your answer.


edited to add: Hillary has almost a million dollars in PAC contributions.

[yourguide]

45. Yup

Every time I have given a political donation I have had to list the company I work for...however the company did not give ME the money to donate.

[Adelante]

52. Only 3% of Obama's donors have maxed out @ $2300

So 97% of his donor base are small donors, almost a million of them. It's something to keep in mind when you are looking at contributions to balance the picture. In comparison, Clinton's small donor base is only 10%, while 90% max out.

[I Vote In Pittsburgh]

53. Misleading

see post 44 by ProSense.