Is this true? OBAMA TAKING BIG CONTRIBUTIONS??

[trueblue2007]

Another dem friend sent me this link. In the article, there is a topic about Obama taking big donations. He states he is taking SMALL donations. Is this deceitful? There are other things that disturb me but this doesn't seem true.

Here is the link: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12687


BIG (DECEPTIVE) TALK ABOUT “SMALL DONATIONS”



Morain also reports that Obama received more than two-thirds (68 percent) of his first quarter 2007 fundraising total “from donations of $1000 or more.” Obama has “played up populist themes of reform,” trumpeting his “large number of small donations” and claiming (in the Senator’s words) to be “launcha fundraising drive that isn’t about dollars” (Morain 2007). But his astonishing first-quarter campaign finance haul of $25.7 million included $17.5 million from “big donors” ($1000 and up) – a sum higher than the much more genuinely populist John Edwards’ (Curry 2007) total take ($14 million) from all donors (Campaign Finance Institute 2007). According to Chicago Sun Times columnist Lynn Sweet (Sweet 2007b):



“Obama talks about transforming politics and touts the donations of ‘ordinary’ people to his campaign, but a network of more than 100 elite Democratic ‘bundlers’ is raising millions of dollars for his White House bid. The Obama campaign prefers the emphasis to be on the army of small donors who are giving -- and raising -- money for Obama. In truth, though, there are two parallel narratives -- and the other is that Obama is also heavily reliant on wealthy and well-connected Democrats. ‘Bundlers’ are people who solicit their networks for donations and, at the elite giving levels, often get some assistance from campaign fund-raising professionals. Each of the 138 Obama bundlers promised to raise at least $50,000, and many are from Chicago, not surprising since Chicago billionaire Penny Pritzker is the national finance chairwoman. Among those from the city are major Democratic donors Lou Sussman, who was John Kerry's chief of fund-raising in 2004; Betty Lu Saltzman, one of Obama's biggest boosters; personal-injury attorney Bob Clifford; Capri Capital CEO Quintin Primo; activists Marilyn Katz and Michael Bauer, Ariel Capital's John Rogers and Mellody Hobson. Hollywood moguls David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg; a string of Harvard Law School friends; Broadway producer Margo Lion, and Bill Kennard, managing director of the Carlyle Group, are among the other bundlers.”



The hypocrisy is many-sided. Last week Sweet reported that Obama had received large donations from at least eight executives at Island Def Jam, a hip-hop recording firm that markets rap artists Obama has accused of “degrading their sisters” with sexist slurs (Sweet 2007c).



For what it’s worth, his wife received $51,200 in 2006 for attending a few board meetings of TreeHouse Foods, a giant firm where she was made a director after Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate (Sweet 2007a). The granting of high-pay and do-little board posts to the spouses of politicians is a longstanding tool of the “old,” corporate-dominated politics that Senator Obama claims to reject. TreeHouse Foods has not responded to my queries regarding Michelle Obama’s qualifications for her position on the company’s board and the timing of her elevation to that position.

[melody]

1. The Clinton-McCain team pumping up the volume to keep Obama from getting donations

It helps them both.

You really have to admire such shameless public perversity.

[elixir]

24. Sounds like Obama's gaffes are drowning them out.

[melody]

26. I don't give a damn -- as I've said, if Clinton is so narcissistic that she must win or destroy us

Then let her have the top of the ticket.

This garbage is just tearing the Democrats apart -- if she HAS to be the top of the ticket,
give the damned thing to her. We need one nominee now.

Or maybe her whole point is to swing the thing to McCain and her more blind supporters will just
follow her off a cliff.

[stillcool]

44. April 28, 2007

did you read the date? Did you read it at all, or do you just like to talk trash?

[leftofcool]

2. One more thing for the rethugs to hit him with

[tabatha]

3. No not true.

Good lord the number of BS stories is multiplying like flies.

In February, he received more than $55million, $45 million of which was from online.

[Kittycat]

4. 90% from donors $100 or less.

385,000 new donors in February alone.

[trueblue2007]

6. This article is NOT full of lies

the donation pattern can be verified. Blindly following Obama even when facts are posted is not right in my book.

I'm a loyal Democrat but Some of the things in this article disturb me.
I have been a Democrat since I was 13 years old and LOVED JFK.

I HAVE VOTED DEMOCRAT IN EVERY SINGLE ELECTION SINCE I WAS ABLE TO VOTE. This crap being thrown at us that we are not loyal Democrats because we support Hillary stinks to high heaven. I am NOT a "rethug"

[Perky]

8. Do the math. Look at Obama's FEC filings!

[Gala328]

11. Sadly . . .

Politics is a dirty, dirty business. There is not much that remains private and honestly, I doubt there are many who are completely clean - especially when many of us have fairly high standards. A dear friend of mine and I constantly debate (peacefully) over the very nature of what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. I would certainly like to know more about this money but would not be surprised if the story lacked proper voir dire and healthy research.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

17. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[walldude]

12. Then why did you pose your original post as a question?

If they are not lies then why did you ask if this was true? Were you just baiting people?



Have you ever seen John Stewarts take on the Fox news use of the Question mark?

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

[trueblue2007]

22. NO, I am not baiting people. This is the first time I've heard of it.

I don't give a RAT'S ARMPIT what John Stewar says about the "question mark" and DON'T EQUATE ME TO FAUX NEWS. I am NOT like that piece of crap, unbalance, decieteful garbage "news network"

Just like my alias...I'm a true blue Democrat who wants answers.

[americanstranger]

28. Why do you want answers?

You're not voting for him anyway.

But, hey, since you asked...

'Bundlers' probably do raise a lot of money for Obama. Having said that, if you're going to whine about Obama using bundlers, then we should take away Clinton's bundlers as well - in the name of fairness.

But as others have pointed out, the overwhelming majority of his contributors are small ones. Is there a problem?

- as

[trueblue2007]

49. Why do I want answers? That is a dumb question.

I want the truth.

[americanstranger]

55. Not half as dumb as the original post!

OP: 'Oh! Is this true??? A Dem friend emailed this to me.... Could it be???'

Response: 'Yeah, it's pretty much bullshit.'

OP: 'No, it is NOT A LIE!!!'

Really - what did you expect?

You just wanted to spread a little innuendo about Obama's fundraising with a year-old hit pice. Admit it, you don't want the truth.

- as

[Catherina]

51. I'm stunned this is the first time you've heard of this

How did you make a decision on which candidate to support without taking the dirty money into it?

He who buys them owns them. Right now it's not looking good for Clinton at all on this issue. So if you really want answers, line them both up and do a comparison. The money that owns Clinton is really dirty.

These are important things to look at if you're concerned about things like war.

[MojoMojoMojo]

53. Obama and Hillary take about the same from big business

But Obama deceives his gullible supporters into thinking hes a populist.
I almost supported him because I assumed he really took no big business money.
After I found out the truth I became extremely pissed off that anyone would dare demean the problem of corporate influence .
Now I look at everything he says as suspect .And he is continuously confirming my suspicions that hes an even bigger fraud than I imagined.

[walldude]

56. First of all I posted the John Stewart thing because it was

funny and relevant. Now if this is the first time you have heard this then why in a later post did you insist that it's all true? You did no research, you gave no answers, you posted a statement with a question mark at the end indicating you weren't sure if it was true, yet in another post you insisted it was. Gee, not sure why I'm confused. :crazy:

[Kittycat]

35. God I loved that episode

:rofl:

[americanstranger]

13. Wow. From 'Is this true?' to 'It is NOT a lie!' in record time.

You barely even gave me time to register my gratitude for your concern.

I don't think you're a Rethug. Now if you ask me whether I think you're trying to slime Obama, you may get a slightly different answer.

- as

[mrreowwr_kittty]

18. LMAO!! Good catch.

:thumbsup:

They're getting sloppy, aren't they?

[OhioBlue]

14. why did you ask in the OP if it was true?

then post a response that it was true.

kind of misleading.

why ask the question.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

15. Yet you're not disturbed by Penn, Hsu, Rich, Burkle, Murdoch, et al.

Amazing. :crazy:

[Catherina]

16. What specifically offended your fragile sensibilities?

Was it the reference to Obama being the number one recipient of donations from the weapons industry?

Whoops, sorry. That was Hillary. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/clinton-bucks-the-trend-and-rakes-in-cash-from-the-us-weapons-industry-397281.html

Or maybe it was the Rupert Murdoch fund raisers?

Damn, Hillary again. How could I be so stupid.

I know, cluster bombs.

Damn, damn, damn. Those are all Hillary. Stupid me.

So what was it again that's getting you so bent out of shape?

[americanstranger]

23. Def Jam!

BornAgainHooligan nailed it. They want to raise the Black Boogeyman.

FAIL.

- as

[John Q. Citizen]

25. TB, Obama isn't taking pac money nor is he taking lobbyest money. Unlike your girl.

If you believe the hit piece you posted is true, why did you ask if it was true?

You are about as transparent as it gets.

I could care less that you support Hillary. You can support who you want. Go for it, and good luck. Maybe since you support her you could ask her to release her 05 and 06 tax returns. That would hepl her look like less of a crook, if she came clean.

But please quit with the BS.

[stillcool]

41. the article is from April 28, 2007

[olkaz]

50. thanks for the laughs

Holy crap you are hilarious.

"trueblue2007's post isn't really a thinly-veiled attack on Obama posed as a question as to infer impartiality, is it?"

The hits just keep on comin', I swear.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

37. Sounds like small contributions to me unless you're using "new math" that Hillary loves so much.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. Oh look, here comes the gangsta rap stories.

Nobody could have foreseen that coming.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

10. Yet the OP has no problem with Clinton getting funds from Rupert Murdoch.

FOX News has done more damage to the A/A community in the past 2 decades than all of the gangsta rap ever produced, IMO.

[Perky]

7. They have over 1 million donors this year

$115 Million in donations


Do the math.

[rox63]

9. He's got mostly small donors

But I'm sure he's not going to turn away big donors. It's politics. Besides, Clinton has a lot more big donors, and much fewer small donors than Obama.

Edit to fix buggy typo.

[walldude]

20. Gotta watch out for those bug donors,

the Praying Mantis eats her mate after sex. :rofl:


Sorry, I know it was a typo, couldn't help myself :toast:

[rox63]

29. Fixed

:rofl:

[DJ13]

19. So, you're either a Hillary supporter or a Republican?

Doesnt make much difference in the end, as your smears against Obama can serve either side.

[rox63]

32. Delete

Wrong thread :blush:

[CyberPieHole]

21. Obama lying as per usual...it seems as if it's a habit with him.

:kick: and rec

[rinsd]

27. Thurs Jan 31st, he raised $138M. Looks like half of that is from donors donating $1000 or greater.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordemCID.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

Obama has a great deal of donors (in the neighbor hood of 650,000 at the end of Jan.), these donors donating $1000 or more amount to less than 40,000 of his donors.

[FrenchieCat]

30. What about Hillary and her corporate donors?

Hillary Clinton and Wal-Mart: A Love Story http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0207-34.htm

Wal-Mart’s First Lady
Hillary’s Past Belies Her Support of Labor
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0021,harkavy,15052,5.html

WalMart Board - 1990

-------------------

Defense Industry Embraces Democrats, Hillary By Far The Favorite

The defense industry this year abandoned its decade-long commitment to the Republican Party, funneling the lion share of its contributions to Democratic presidential candidates, especially to Hillary Clinton who far out-paced all her competitors.

An examination of contributions of $500 or more, using the Huffington Post's Fundrace website, shows that employees of the top five arms makers - Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, Raytheon and General Dynamics -- gave Democratic presidential candidates $103,900, with only $86,800 going to Republicans.

Senator Clinton took in $52,600, more than half of the total going to all Democrats, and a figure equaling 60 percent of the sum going to the entire GOP field. Her closest competitor for defense industry money is former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R.), who raised $32,000.

Insofar as defense workers making political donations reflect the interests of their employers, the contributions clearly suggest that the arms industry has reach the conclusion that Democratic prospects for 2008 are very good indeed. Since their profits are so heavily dependent on government contracts, companies in this field want to be sure they do not have hostile relations with the White House.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/17/defense-industry-embraces_n_68927.html


Weapons Industry WarLords Back Hillary Clinton, along with Wall Street Investment Bankers: her position on wars is like Lieberman Options
http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/browse_thread/thread/72ddcef300b05e2a


http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/101907O.shtml

-------------------

Hillary Inc.

If Clinton really wanted to curtail the influence of the powerful, she might start with the advisers to her own campaign, who represent some of the weightiest interests in corporate America. Her chief strategist, Mark Penn, not only polls for America's biggest companies but also runs one of the world's premier PR agencies. A bevy of current and former Hillary advisers, including her communications guru, Howard Wolfson, are linked to a prominent lobbying and PR firm--the Glover Park Group--that has cozied up to the pharmaceutical industry and Rupert Murdoch. Her fundraiser in chief, Terry McAuliffe, has the priciest Rolodex in Washington, luring high-rolling contributors to Clinton's campaign. Her husband, since leaving the presidency, has made millions giving speeches and counsel to investment banks like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. They house, in addition to other Wall Street firms, the Clintons' closest economic advisers, such as Bob Rubin and Roger Altman, whose DC brain trust, the Hamilton Project, is Clinton's economic team in waiting. Even the liberal in her camp, former deputy chief of staff Harold Ickes, has lobbied for the telecom and healthcare industries, including a for-profit nursing home association indicted in Texas for improperly funneling money to disgraced former House majority leader Tom DeLay. "She's got a deeper bench of big money and corporate supporters than her competitors," says Eli Attie, a former speechwriter to Vice President Al Gore. Not only is Hillary more reliant on large donations and corporate money than her Democratic rivals, but advisers in her inner circle are closely affiliated with unionbusters, GOP operatives, conservative media and other Democratic Party antagonists.

It's not exactly an advertisement for the working-class hero, or a picture her campaign freely displays. Her lengthy support for the Iraq War is Clinton's biggest liability in Democratic primary circles. But her ties to corporate America say as much, if not more, about what she values and cast doubt on her ability and willingness to fight for the progressive policies she claims to champion. She is "running to help and restore the great middle class in our country," Wolfson says. So was Bill in 1992. He was for "putting people first." Then he entered the White House and pushed for NAFTA, signed welfare reform, consolidated the airwaves through the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (leading to Clear Channel's takeover) and cleared the mergers of mega-banks. Would the First Lady do any different? Ever since the defeat of healthcare reform, Hillary has been a committed incrementalist, describing herself as a creature of the "moderate, sensible center" whom business admires and rewards. During her six years in the Senate, she's rarely been out front on difficult economic issues. Given her proximity to money and power, it's not hard to figure out why she keeps controversial figures close to her--even if their work becomes a liability for her campaign.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070604/berman

[indimuse]

31. everyday something new..

Barack Obama is becoming more vulnrable EVERYDAY!!

[ProSense]

36. Everyday, same spin. The same claim was made when Obama reported his Jan. numbers

Everyone knows the truth, but attempting another gotcha is easy enough!

[stillcool]

47. You mean something old...

recycling the same old shit is getting old. If you bothered to read the article it was published on April 28, 2007. Whatever works for you, eh?

[IsItJustMe]

33. Sounds like FAUX news reporting.

[democrattotheend]

34. Check out the numbers for February

Of the $55 million, $45 million came from online donations.

Online Fundraising:

* More than $45 million raised online in February
* More than 90% of online donations were $100 or less
* More than 50% of online donations were $25 or less
* More than 75% of online donors in February were first-time online donors
* More than a third of those new online donors in February went on to engage in volunteer activity on My.BarackObama.com (planning their own offline events, making phone calls from home, joining local grassroots volunteer groups)

[NashVegas]

38. Donor Demographics Here

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.asp?filter=A&sortby=N

[stillcool]

39. Your article is from April 28, 2007

and it is a hit piece. Read it.

[americanstranger]

46. Of course it is!

I could tell it would be a hit piece as soon as I saw the 'Is this true????' headline. That fake wide-eyed stuff is a dead giveaway.

They seem to be running out of fresh ammo over in Hillaryland.

- as

[susankh4]

40. Hypocrisy & Lies

I'm so sick of it all.

I thought we hada winning ticket, and a winning DNC head. But, noooooooooo.... one stupid gaffe after the next.

:mad:

[Adelante]

42. February 2008

* Contributors: 727,972
* First Time Contributors: 385,101
* Total Contributors – Campaign to Date: 1,069,333

Online Fundraising:

* More than $45 million raised online in February
* More than 90% of online donations were $100 or less
* More than 50% of online donations were $25 or less
* More than 75% of online donors in February were first-time online donors

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/obama_campaign_raises_55_milli.php



Nobody says Obama doesn't take big contributions, but obviously he has very many more small donors than large ones :shrug:

[itcfish]

43. Say it Ain't So

St. Obama? never!

[TheDoorbellRang]

45. To answer your question

Yes, Obama's taking contributions from big donors. He's also taking contributions from small donors. 90% of his donations are from small donors, but this does not mean that 90% of his total fund is from small donors. Look at it this way: if ten people give him money, and nine of them give him $100 and the tenth person gives him $2000, 90% of his donations are from small donors, but 69% of his total funds here are from the one large donor.

All the candidates' donors are listed on a website (which I don't remember off the top of my head) that can be perused by the public, and it is in part thanks to Obama that that transparency in campaign financing is now available.

[Vinca]

48. I hope he's taking some big donations.

I don't want ALL of them to go to Hillary.

[MojoMojoMojo]

52. True Obama is a liar about financing, Thats the Deal Breaker for me

He does take Lobby and Pac money.
http://www.caclean.org/problem/latimes_2007-04-22.php
He takes almost as much from big business as Hillary.
By now probably MORE than Hillary.
Heres figures from FEC, scroll though each category and add them up.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F07
Obama should be in the $75 million plus from big business.
These are only donations above $200 so if you do that math there is no way he takes 90% from $100 donors.Last month he said 90% FROM $25-50 donors.

[onenote]

54. Do you have a mind of your own or do you simply believe everything a "friend" sends you to read?

The article that you extensively quote in your OP is a putrid pile of shit. And demonstrably so. It tries, for example to hold up John Edwards (who, by the way, was my first choice for the nomination), as a positive example in terms of "populist" fundraising against Obama. Well, lets look as some actual data, all drawn from opensecrets.org.

Edwards:
Percentage of "large" contributors ($1000 and up): 48 percent
Percentage of contributions from "large" constributors: 85.6%

Clinton:
Percentage of "large" contributors ($1000 and up): 68 percent
Percentage of contributions from "large" constributors: 92%

Obama:
Percentage of "large" contributors ($1000 and up): 50 percent
Percentage of contributions from "large" constributors: 84.5%

So, basically, Obama's support from large/small contributors is almost identical in percentage terms as Edwards' support was. And its notably less oriented to big givers than HRC, both in terms of percentage of givers and amount given.

But don't bother to check the facts. Believing anything you see on the Internets is so much easier.

[sueragingroz]

57. Change you can't believe in... /nt

[RBInMaine]

58. Obama: Zero PAC and Lobbist $. MOSTLY small online $.