Clinton and Obama Are Almost Identical On Contributions/Records

[RestoreGore]

* The charts in this link I believe were as of (9/07), and even when compared to current information shows Clinton with 1% Pac donations currently. Even Edwards had some when he was running. The point then being, don't tell me you never took it when you did, and don't try to sell me on only one candidate being the "corporate" candidate when individual contributions comprise the main part of both campaigns.

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011404.php

OBSERVATIONS:

1.1 Sen. Clinton has raised much more in absolute $ from all sources than Sen. Obama has but this is not surprising considering she has been in the U.S. Senate much longer than Sen. Obama .

1.2 The vast majority of contributions to Sen. Clinton's and Sen. Obama's campaigns are from individuals. Known PAC (incl. lobbyist) contributions constitute barely ~2% of Sen. Clinton's total receipts and barely ~1% of Sen. Obama's total receipts (Note: I don't have the break-up of the contributions that Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama transferred from "Other" sources). In my book, this difference is pretty minor, especially when I look at this in conjunction with their voting records (discussed below). As I noted in the introduction to this post, Sen. Edwards has negligible contributions from PACs.

1.3 With respect to their PAC contributions, the percentages of PAC contributions that Sen. Clinton received from business interests (55%), labor (23%) and ideological/single-issue groups (21%) are virtually identical to the percentages of PAC contributions that Sen. Obama received from those same interests (55%, 23%, 22%).

1.4 A review of the PAC funds that Senator Clinton and Sen. Obama received from each business sector - as a percentage of the total contributions they received from that sector - shows marginal differences between Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton in most cases. (The only significant difference is that Sen. Obama received a noticeably higher percentage of PAC funds (to Total funds) from Ideological or Single-Issue Group PACs than Sen. Clinton did) .

1.5 In terms of quality of disclosure, both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama have comparable levels of disclosure on the source of their funds, although Sen. Obama has a slightly higher non-disclosure rate (10.6% to Sen. Clinton's 7.5%),that is comparable to Sen. Edwards' non-disclosure rate (10.2%). I would not usually point this out, but I am doing so since Sen. Obama has been critical of Sen. Clinton's alleged non-disclosure on some campaign finance matters.


TABLE 1.2 Federal campaign finance summaries on PAC receipts as a percentage of total receipts for Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama (source: Center for Responsive Politics)

Sector Sen. Clinton % (PAC $/Total $) Sen. Obama(% PAC $/Total $) ( Clinton first number, Obama second)

Agribusiness 6.5 % 9.0 %

Communication/Electronics 2.5 % 1.4 %

Construction 2.8 % 1.9 %

Defense 27.8 % 19.6 %

Energy/Nat Resource 9.3 % 7.9 %

Finance/Ins/Real Estate 2.1 % 1.6 %

Health 5.1 % 3.2 %

Lawyers & Lobbyists 2.3 % 0.7 %

Transportation 7.3 % 10.5 %

Misc Business 1.6 % 0.7 %

Labor 85.2 % 90. 2 %

Ideological/Single-Issue 2.9 % 31.6 %

Other 0.2 % 0.1 %
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Table 2.1 Progressive Punch Progressive Score Comparison Table

Category/Issue Sen. Clinton Sen. Obama (Clinton first percentage, Obama second percentage)

Overall Progressive Score 92% 90%

Aid to Less Advantaged People at Home and Abroad 98% 97%

Corporate Subsidies 100% Not Av

Education, Humanities and the Arts 88% 100%

Environment 92% 100%

Fair Taxation 97% 100%

Family Planning 88% 80%

Government Checks on Corporate Power 95% 97%

Healthcare 98% 94%

Housing 100% 100%

Human Rights & Civil Liberties 82% 77%

Justice for All: Civil and Criminal 94% 91%

Labor Rights 91% 91%

Making Government Work for Everyone,
Not Just the Rich or Powerful 94% 90%

War and Peace 80% 86%


end of excerpt.

Apparently, both are more progressive in their voting records than is being dessiminated on these blogs. So what other agenda is there for those who continually try to paint Clinton as the 'corporate' Democrat when her voting record and progressive scores are similar or better than Obama's?

[Skittles]

1. imagine that

yet one is EVIL and the other is a SAINT - shows it ain't just repukes who fall for bad propaganda

[William769]

7. Ain't that the truth!

With Hillary being the saint, we know who is evil.

[RestoreGore]

8. dupe n/t

[ProSense]

2. Obama doesn't take money from PACs or lobbyist!

How many times are you going to post this debunked claim. You know it has been debunked!

[RestoreGore]

3. I ONLY POSTED THIS ONCE

[ProSense]

4. This link? You've posted the claim many times. n/t

[RestoreGore]

5. I HARDLY POST HERE. I think you have your targets mixed up

And don't try to make this about me because you can't refute the numbers here.

[ProSense]

10. Here,

scroll down at the links and see their PACs contributions:

Obama

Hillary

[BumRushDaShow]

13. LOL. Beat you by a minute!

:rofl: :P

(while the site was crapping out too!)

[RestoreGore]

15. Where do you think the chart in the OP comes from?

[BumRushDaShow]

19. The OP linked to an article from November 2007. n/t

[RestoreGore]

23. Wow, you're quick. Four months ago. Not that long ago. Your point?

Is there a time limit here? It then shows that Obama had PAC money onlyu four months ago. Where did it then go?

[BumRushDaShow]

26. The point is that since that time

Clinton lent herself $5,000,000 (+ plus she pulled another $10,000,000 from her Senate war chest) and Obama raised $55,000,000 just in February alone. The fund-raising environment of November changed dramatically after January.

Note that the OP doesn't include any actual dollar amounts. Only percentages which IMHO skews the meaning behind those figures to make it appear that the 2 candidates are operating identically when they are not.

[RestoreGore]

28. Then provide what's missing

[BumRushDaShow]

31. Stop being lazy and look through this thread.

What is "missing" is posted several times and post #25 has a screenshot, for those too lazy to click on links. :eyes:

[RestoreGore]

35. Again it doesn't change that Clinton and Obama are virtually the same...

On progressive records and contribution sources which is the point. Not positng the same chart over again as if to bludgeon me with it. I looked at it for the third time and made mention of it in the OP as currently Clinton having 1% PAC donations, which is actually Obama had in percentage only four months ago.

[BumRushDaShow]

40. Why do you refuse to post the dollar amounts?

Because if you do, it negates your argument.

[RestoreGore]

43. It's in the link in the OP. Why do you refuse to read it?

The table below summarizes the career fundraising data for Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton from the wonderful Center for Responsive Politics (Note: the percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding and the $ values are as of 9/30/07; for reference, data for Sen. Edwards is here). I discuss the implications of the data towards the end of this section. One thing to keep in mind is that since Sen. Clinton has been in Congress more than twice as long as Sen. Obama, absolute $ numbers are not as important as the percentages.

TABLE 1.1 Federal campaign finance summaries for Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama (source: Center for Responsive Politics)

Sen. Clinton / Sen. Obama (Clinton first, Obama second)

Source of funds

Individual contributions 151.7M 88% 94.5 M 97%


PAC contributions 3.7M 2% 1.3 M 1%


Candidate self-financing 0 0% 10.5 K 0%

Other* 17.4M 10% 1.3 M 1%

PAC contribution breakdown

Business 1.9 M 55% 674 K 55%

Labor 0.8 M 23% 287 K 23%

Ideological/Single-Issue 0.7 M 21% 271 K 22%

Quality of disclosure

Full disclosure 113.9 M 91.2% 68.5 M 88.2%

Incomplete disclosure 1.6 M 1.3% 0.98 M 1.3%

No disclosure 9.3 M 7.5% 8.2 M 10.6%

<*FOOTNOTE: The "Other" category is explained by CRP as follows - "OTHER: All other revenues collected by the campaign, such as interest from the campaign's bank accounts and loans from outside sources. This figure is calculated by subtracting PAC, individual and candidate money from total revenues received. Negative numbers generally indicate an accounting error by the campaign." I don't have the break-up of individual v. PAC sources for the funds in the "Other" category.>

[BumRushDaShow]

45. The dollar figures are NOW in this post but not in the OP for all to have seen originally.

Why weren't they in the OP? You literally cut and paste everything but that in your OP?

The dollar figures ARE important because if someone says they didn't take money from PACs, you see it right there. These percentages are being rounded to whole numbers, which introduces a large percent of error, and again, that skews the figures to make them seem "closer" than they really are.

[RestoreGore]

48. Are you kidding me?

Again, I was showing percentages and progressive voting records, and the chart I just posted since you refused to look at it by just clicking on a link was already in the link I posted. Now, are you done badgering me here? According to the chart dated 9/07 which was only a couple of months ago, Obama had 1.3 million dollars in PAC contributions. That isn't zero which was my point.

[DerekJ]

50. See post number #25

[RestoreGore]

54. See the OP

[DerekJ]

58. I am really about to doubt your intelligence, I already doubt your sincerity.

The difference is as clear as night and day.
Obama got $250 in PAC contributions
Hillary got over a million.

[RestoreGore]

65. He had 1.3 million as of the chart I posted from only four months ago...

Seems you can't quite make the connection or the context of this based on his words of not taking ANY. Even 250 dollars isn't ZERO. Got it now? So I don't think it's my sincerity you need to be concerned about.

[BumRushDaShow]

56. Downthread

I mention that if your argument is that you don't believe what they are reporting to the FEC at this point, then I wish you well doing primary investigation into the allegation of fraudulent reporting and then forwarding that to the FEC. There is, at this point, no way to know whether what the 11/07 blog reported, was using data that may have been in error (the 9/07 chart), which since then may have been corrected. Case in point is that early on, there were many reports of candidates receiving "corporate donations", but when researching, the donation was found to not be a lump sum in the name of the corporation, but was bundled as individual donations from employees from that corporation. Alternately, donations may have been received, reported, and since returned. For example see this: http://www3.whdh.com/news/articles/national/BO49025/

Again, no way to really know.

[ProSense]

20. It's false, it's been updated since Nov. 2007, probably to avoid misrepresentation of the data. n/t

[RestoreGore]

24. What's false? I explained in the OP it was from 9/07...

When Obama according to the charts from the same organization you linked to supposedly had PAC money. You mean the information is false if YOU don't post it?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

6. except Obama lies about his Lobbyists money

[RestoreGore]

11. I think some fenagling of category descriptions is going on

NO ONE raises the millions these candidates are raising with none of it coming from lobbyists or other interests. I suppose he thinks EXELON isn't a lobbyist either.

[BumRushDaShow]

16. Why don't you believe in the power of the internet and the masses?

This is a new paradigm for political fund-raising that has been going on for some time for other types of fund-raising - like right here at DU!

[RestoreGore]

18. Why are you trying to change the subject?

[BumRushDaShow]

27. ??? You wrote

"I think some fenagling of category descriptions is going on

NO ONE raises the millions these candidates are raising with none of it coming from lobbyists or other interests. I suppose he thinks EXELON isn't a lobbyist either."

I interpreted this to say that you don't believe that millions could come in without it coming from corporations rather than individuals and I responded how this could be. But if your argument is as weak as it seems to be, naturally you would come up with such a nonsensical quip as someone "changing the subject". :eyes: Of course you are responding to one of my ignores so I should probably take whatever you post with a grain of salt.

[RestoreGore]

55. Working class people in a recession don't have money to give to campaigns in those amounts

It has nothting to do with my faith or lack thereof in Internet fundraising but with the reality of the current state of this country.

[BumRushDaShow]

59. Wow. Way to stereotype people.

When people are so-moved, they will give what they can to whoever they want if it gives them some piece of mind.

Case in point - where are the millions coming from to support these mega-churches? The vast majority of those involved in mega-churches are "working class". One such mega-church recently finished a massive, stadium-sized building a few miles from where I live and another is under construction a mere 2 miles from me. These people are by no means "the wealthy". They are "working class". They are construction workers, plumbers, maintenance people, bus drivers, maids, cashiers, waiters/waitresses, etc., who have donated and fund-raised and contributed to purchasing the land, hiring a builder, submitting a down payment, and maintaining a mortgage and all the utilities on huge houses of worship.

You would be surprised where people are willing to put their money. I don't want to stereotype myself but I see the very people who you describe standing in line day after day plunking down between $5 and $20 PER DAY for lottery tickets. All in the hope of winning a million. And actually, it's not just "working class"/"blue collar", but "pink collar" and even "white collar". Taking a week's "lottery money" and donating to a campaign would be no different, if they feel they will get some "bang" out of their "buck".

[RestoreGore]

66. Not to total over 50 million in one month. Unless CEOS are considered "individual" contributions

And that isn't a sterotype, that is the reality of our economic situation now. Nice way to twist it to suit yourself.

[BumRushDaShow]

9. Try some facts.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008">Obama

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008">Clinton

Like day and night.

[Andy823]

12. You beat me to it

Open secrets has a great site to find out who gets what.:thumbsup:

[BumRushDaShow]

14. It is a great site! n/t

[RestoreGore]

29. It sure is

[RestoreGore]

17. And? Still practically identical

[BumRushDaShow]

22. Did you actually click on the links?

How is this "virtually identical"?

CLINTON

Individual contributions $151,592,927 90%

PAC contributions $1,157,939 1%

Candidate self-financing $5,000,000 3%

Federal Funds $0 0%

Other $0 0%

OBAMA

Individual contributions $192,757,471 100%

PAC contributions $250 0%

Candidate self-financing $0 0%

Federal Funds $0 0%

Other $0 0%

Or is this more bizzaro world-speak?

[RestoreGore]

30. Did you read the OP where I noted it?

[BumRushDaShow]

33. How many times have you edited the OP?

I see a "7:54 pm" edit as the latest so far.

Why are you not including dollar figures? The dollar figures show what the percentages don't because they refute the argument of them being "identical".

[RestoreGore]

38. Why are you badgering me?

I edited it once to note the date of the charts in the link, and once to change my text. And I stated "almost" identical in regards to PAC contribution percentages. You want dollar amounts from that period as well then go to the link posted and find them instead of being "lazy."

[BumRushDaShow]

42. You made an argument

and other posters including myself disagreed with it because you left out critical data that negated your presumption. We then posted it for you and asked you to include it. Now you are upset about being "badgered"? :shrug:

[RestoreGore]

44. No, the data is in the link in the OP as was explained. You just refused to look at it

Don't put this on me because you just wanted someone to blame. Obama took PAC money according to the Center for Responsive Politics as recently as was reported in 9.07. I would then like to know where it is being categorized now, because I do not believe it is now zero. And frankly, I think the amounts of money raised by BOTH of them just to run a campaign are OBSCENE.

[BumRushDaShow]

46. I am putting it on you because you managed to leave out data in your OP

and what you did include, using percentages rounded to whole numbers, skews the results and negates your argument of the two being "identical".

But now you have changed your argument by indicating that you don't believe what they have reported. That, IMHO, is an issue for the FEC and if you wish to do primary investigation into this allegation to report to the FEC, more power to you.

I would agree that the money spent on this IS obscene. I think many people do, which is why there have been numerous posts and discussion here and elsewhere about election reform (there is a forum for it I believe). But I still believe that it is not out of the realm of possibility to have national fund-raising via the internet that can rake in quite a bit.

[RestoreGore]

52. I truly think you are confused

Firstly, I did not make the chart. It is information found on the same site linked here already by multiple posters. Secondly, I do have a hard time believing that in only a couple of months time there are no PAC contributions when you had over a million just a couple of months prior. It is an observation, nothing more.

[BumRushDaShow]

60. No you are confused.

One chart (the most recent) says $250 and the other chart (older) says $1.3 million. So there is a conflict in the figures reported and you are arguing that the older chart was correct and the newer chart is not, despite all the media focus on the candidates and their assertions about where their money comes from and of course, the full force of the M$M to research it and supposedly determine the truth.

What you have pointed out is a discrepancy, however you have skewed the discrepancy in favor of your own argument.... and we can argue and argue until the cows come home but IMHO, it would be up to the FEC to decide which is correct and which is not. We will just need to agree to disagree is all.

[Garbo 2004]

21. Those figures are Fed career totals. 2008 Presidential campaign info here:

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

Clinton 2008 campaign: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008

[anonymous171]

25. *******HERE WE GO*******:

Obama


Clinton

[RestoreGore]

32. I know. It's been posted already.

Still doesn't negate the figures from four months ago from the same source.

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

37. I have found your posts juxtapositioned with your Gore name, Offensive for months.

You are now the first on my Ignore.

[RestoreGore]

39. Bye.

[DerekJ]

51. It does everything to negate the figures you are talking about.

[maximusveritas]

34. Progressive Punch takes into account missed votes

When you don't do that, Obama is far more progressive.

Also, Clinton is painted as a corporate Democrat because of her strong ties to the DLC. She's moved away from them since running, but they are still heavilly on her side.

[RestoreGore]

41. Missed votes should be taken into account

And so should "present" votes.

[RazBerryBeret]

36. if by "Identical" you mean

$10 million from PACs for HRC
and $18 thousand from PACs for BHO

http://www.campaignmoney.com/committee.asp?candidateid=P00003392&cycle=08&cnt=112&amt=10254400&cname=Hillary+Clinton

then yeah, they're ALMOST identical.....

[Marie26]

47. Exactly

There's very little difference in their funding or even their positions. Maybe that's why things got personal instead.

[DerekJ]

49. See post number 25.

I am sorry, but that's not true.

[RestoreGore]

53. I think so too.

[BumRushDaShow]

57. There is a big difference but the scotoma is par for the course. n/t

[Marie26]

61. Scotoma?

I learned a word today. What is the "big difference"? Just a one sentence post does not explain what the big difference is, or justify calling those who do not see the unnamed big difference blind.

[BumRushDaShow]

62. See the difference in the FEC reports linked.

For example:

Obama = $250 from PACs
Clinton = $1,157,939 from PACs

Last time I checked, $250 did not equal $1,157,939 and they aren't even close.

[Marie26]

63. That's misleading

Both Obama & Clinton accept money from PACs & lobbyists. That's one thing that bugs me about Obama's campaign; to me it's disingenuous & even pandering to pretend that Obama doesn't get lobbyist funding when he does. At least Clinton is upfront about it. Obama's got lobbyists on his campaign, though they claim not to. And Obama actually has a PAC devoted exclusively to his election: Hopefund. He's also got affiliated 527's like "Vote Hope." Obama is actually the chair of the Hopefund PAC, & the campaign has gotten into some hot water for skirting campaign finance laws. This is not to say that Obama's evil, but just that BOTH candidates have had to use "old politics" fundraising in order to raise the massive amounts of money this campaign takes.



CLINTON CAMP, OBAMA SPAR OVER PAC -
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/02/492673.aspx


Hope Fund
Affiliate: Barack Obama (D-Ill)
2006 PAC Summary Data

Total Receipts


$4,430,245
Total Spent (view expenditures)

$3,753,518
Begin Cash on Hand

$0
End Cash on Hand


http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.asp?strID=C00409052&cycle=2006

[BumRushDaShow]

64. Data from 2006. Hello? It's 2008.

How are the CURRENT FEC filings "misleading"? How is the Hope Fund $$ suddenly automatically part of his current campaign and being spent on items related to this campaign? The link explains what its purpose was and how the money was handled. Yet you have now made a leap of assumption of what you think is really happening to fit your argument. This despite the fact that there is a repuke-run FEC, who could kill his campaign in a hot minute if they had the data to prove it yet they haven't done so.

But again, this is the scotoma that I am talking about.

[Marie26]

71. Because it's a PAC

Headed by Obama. Which sort of hurts the whole message about how Obama doesn't support PACs. Personally, I don't have a huge problem w/PACs - many support liberal causes, & it is a way for individual people to organize funds & further their causes. But it's hypocritical to speak out against PACs & lobbyists on one hand & accept their support w/the other. Which is my main problem w/Obama - it's like he wants credit for being "anti-lobbyist" w/o losing the financial support they offer. I don't get the big objection to the opensecrets link I posted - you can change it to the 2008 cycle right there. But if you don't see that, here's a link to the 2008 funding cycle: http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.asp?strid=C00409052&cycle=2008

My main point is that there is virtually no difference between the funding of Obama & Clinton. Even if you accept the (IMO misleading) stats given, that means Clinton gets 1% of money from PACs & Obama gets 0%. That's hardly a huge difference. And if you look at the top 10 contributers to each campaign, the list is almost identical & filled w/corporate fat cats. If you're looking for a candidate who doesn't have corporate support, that was Edwards & Kucinich, or even Huckabee & Ron Paul. The Big Money has switched to the Dem side, because they think a Dem will win, & they've funded both Obama & Clinton. And in terms of policy positions, both offer similar platforms: out of Iraq, health care, economic reform, etc. So if they're both getting big funding, & they're both offering similar platforms, what's left? Personal attacks, labeling one person as an angel & another a demon, when they're both just politicians.

[RestoreGore]

67. Is this the PAC used to support Superdelegates?

[DerekJ]

69. I no longer have any doubts about it, you are a Moron.

[RestoreGore]

70. And you are illiterate

Obama donated hundreds of thousands to campaigns of those who are superdelegates. Didn't it come from somewhere? It was a legitimate question. But of course the response wasn't surprising. His supporters constantly embarass him on these forums.

[RestoreGore]

68. Scotoma: The mind sees what it chooses to see

But that only seems to apply one way here.