Obama and Dean have changed the game and the Pubbies and DLC are pissed

[youknowmenotdlc]

Instead of the usual corporately financed election Obama and Howard Dean have changed the rules and developed the grass roots as the major financiers of this election, at least when it comes to Obama.
This is why the pukes want Hillary, this is why those DLCers are whining about getting their money back from Dean, this is why little piddly issues like what Obama's preacher says become fodder for the 24/7 corporate cable media.

Here is a short list of the advantages of Obama's "bottom up" funded campaign:

1. It is truly Democratic, average folks who have given as little as 25 bucks now feel invested in the process, this means more participation, more oversight and a much needed increase in fostering the dying concept of citizenship.

2. The powers that be become less relevant. The usual special interest financiers of elections now give a smaller slice of the donation pie, this reduces their ability to exert influence. Whereas Bush freely admitted that his base were the wealthy and powerful Obama can truly divorce himself from doing their bidding since pulling future donation funds don't have the same impact that they would have on other traditional candidates.

3. Last but not least it teaches the nation a valuable and much needed lesson. While most people have stood on the sidelines and allowed industry and special interests to fund elections, and thus control them, an Obama victory will show that the age old complaint that the "Big money" runs the system will at the very least be shaken.

No other candidate can point to the level of true investment in the democratic process than Obama, if he wins it will rock the old boys system, if he loses it will further reinforce it.

[gateley]

1. Anything that pisses off the R's and the DLC

gets a star in my book! :bounce:

[meow mix]

2. these "wealthy insiders" are getting side-lined for once.

woot

[patrice]

3. The DNC has also been working very hard on getting its organization and processes

together to give these folks someone/something to work with after the GE.

The next pResident is going to enherit quite an astonishing tool.

[knixphan]

4. Yeah, the Nation had an article confirming this...

your summary is right on, and that's what I love about being an Obama-donor.

[DB1]

5. Wow, I am not the only one that has it thought out. I'm not crazy! Thanks.

[OzarkDem]

6. Obama's campaign is not "bottom up" funded

Check the CRP, his money is bundled, mostly from Wall Street.

[youknowmenotdlc]

7. And compare that to how much of his money comes from

donations less than 200 bucks.

[youknowmenotdlc]

8. here

Heres a site called http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp

All donations over 200 bucks must be reported, Obama has about 80,000 donors who have contributed over 200 bucks this leaves 1.9 million people who have contributed under 200 bucks. Even by using the most aggressive standards of multiplying the number of 200+ donors by their contribution group (22-500, 500-999, 1000-2300, 2300-4600) we find that over half of all the money Obama has raised has come from those 1.9 million average joes.

[roguevalley]

22. ha. consider that he is getting donations. Hillary can't pay her bills.

his grassroots is enormous and carries the day. Hillary tapped out her big donors. the dipshits that tried to blackmail pelosi, half of them haven't even donated to a campaign. Their names are there anyway. Fatcat shitheads. I would worry about a buncha corporate assholes arm twisting for your candidate than worry about 2million people donating from the grassroots for obama. By the by, about one third to one half of those assholes on that list spent a night or two in the Lincoln bedroom. Miss their old stomping grounds perhaps.

[DB1]

25. Bundled my ass, I take offense.

[NashVegas]

9. Barack Obama's Top Contributors: #1 Goldman Sachs --- $522,228

Full list right here:
http://opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

Goldman Sachs $522,228
UBS AG $327,302
JPMorgan Chase & Co $316,892
Lehman Brothers $302,697
National Amusements Inc $293,022
Citigroup Inc $290,146
University of California $275,046
Sidley Austin LLP $271,857
Harvard University $264,941
Google Inc $259,010
Skadden, Arps et al $248,743
Exelon Corp $227,661
Morgan Stanley $225,976
Time Warner $221,878
Jones Day $212,525
Latham & Watkins $187,208
Kirkland & Ellis $181,976
University of Chicago $179,147
Citadel Investment Group $175,900
Microsoft Corp $167,990

[anonymous171]

12. OMG The University of California lobby gave $275,045 to Obama?

:sarcasm:

[youknowmenotdlc]

13. From the site:

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.

Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY's List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers.

[keep_it_real]

14. Even though these corps contributed to his campaign

He does not have to show them any special favor. There is no written contract that says, "I will contribute so much and so much for such and such special favor." He did not ask these people to contribute to his campaign. And therefore he can ignore them and treat them as if they never gave anything to his campaign.

What can they do after he is in office and shows them no special favor? They can do nothing.

[patrice]

16. Doesn't mean much without HC's next to it. nt

[NashVegas]

24. IIRC, They're Pretty Similar

Which is the point, kind of. This idea that an Obama presidency would be untainted by corporate lobbying doesn't look like it would be a reality in side-by-side comparisons.

[patrice]

26. I'm not a child. Of course what you're saying is true of all campaigns.

The real questions are about who is/will hold the doors open for whom and from where I'm sitting, it's more Edwards's supporters who are out there doing the work of finding precinct persons.

[Blue State Bandit]

18. This list reps the total from individuals who work for the same company.

This is not PAC money.

[Blue State Bandit]

20. Barack v. Hillary contributors breakdown.

Barack Obama.

Individual contributions $192,757,471 100%

PAC contributions $250 0%

Candidate self-financing $0 0%

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

Hillary Clinton.

Individual contributions $151,592,927 90%

PAC contributions $1,157,939 1%

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

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

[Ravy]

33. mis-post. Deleted by author.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

10. Obama= Dean 2.0

The upgrade fixed the screamworm and the offthecuff virus.


Hopefully, this is the campaign of the future. The sad thing is that the SCOTUS will probably come back and say "We made a mistake when we said money= free speech."

[tnlefty]

27. "Upgrade fixed the screamworm and the offthecuff virus"...

:rofl: and thanks for the laugh (supported Dean when he ran). :thumbsup:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

28. : )

[depakid]

29. Hardly!

Dean never took this sort of corporate money- and Obama's never run anything (much less been a popular and successful governor).

In addition, I never saw Dean go out and praise Reagan and Bush I -or say that he'd want to emulate their foreign policies....

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

31. 2,000,000 donors.

:think:

[SoCalDem]

11. It's far better to have 100K people donating $10

than to have 10 richies bundling $100K apiece..

The 100K people with $10 are not nearly as "dangerous" in their demands either..

[PoliticalAmazon]

15. HRC ignored small contributors; HUGE strategical mistake

Small contributors bring added value:

1) Once a contribution has been made, the voter is more loyal to the campaign and less likely to flip to another candidate.

2) They are more likely than large contributors to volunteer for their candidate.

3) They are more likely than huge contributors to try to convince their friends to vote for their candidate.

4) They are less likely than huge contributors to withdraw their support if the campaign hits a bad stretch in the road.

For Hillary Clinton to ignore smaller voter contributions (she didn't even have an internet contribution link until recently), and depend on large donations to buy the race for her, she is finding it hard to build momentum which comes from the passion with which supporters work for their candidate. Where do all of the supporters come from who go to such lengths and effort to hear Obama speak? From the rank-and-filers who know that they are important to the OBama campaign.

Just like she ignored us for the last 7 years, doing more in Congress to collaborate with the neocons than to represent the best interests of her Democratic Party voters, she ignored us when she started her "inevitable" campaign for the primary. Her large contributors are not willing or able to finance her as she needs now, and she has had to sink to not paying her debts and even loaning money to her own campaign.

Obama's natural style is to work with the people, and he decided early on to try to engage the masses as much as possible in his campaign.

Hillary's natural style is to do slick backroom deals, and this is not a campaign approach that builds up a mass of loyal supporters who will volunteer, convince their friends how to vote, show up at speeches, and builds voter loyalty.

Just another example of Hillary Clinton's bad judgment, you may say, but this one is a fatal flaw that may be the undoing of her campaign.

[patrice]

19. It's starting to turn into more than showing up at speeches:

Yesterday, my group of anti-Bush's War protestors who have been in the streets since 2001, met with an independent group of 20-Somethings, whom we've met with once before, near our biggest busiest mall. Their group has been 70 - 100+ in the two times we supported them. This time, the honking was absolutely the most frequent and sustained than any time I can remember in the last 5-6 years. I noticed numerous Obama stickers, friends and family of our 20-Something friends probably, but POWERFUL, nonetheless for a few thousand on-lookers, some of whom you could see (stopped for a traffic light) sitting there and reading our signs and looking kind of puzzled and then giving us an enthusiastic toot when the light turned green.

P.S. Many SMALL children sitting in backseats giving us the peace sign - makes me want to cry.

[shance]

17. I'm laughing if you the think the grass roots are financing this deal.

You've drank the koolaid if you believe that elitist propaganda.

Don't believe me. Just look on opensecrets.org.

There you will find REALITY.

[anonymous171]

21. You obviously don't know how to read those graphs then...

[melody]

23. exactly n/t

[bunnies]

30. Power to the People.

:bounce:

[libodem]

32. The 'grassroots'

should ideally be where politics originate. And the funding, too!

[Ravy]

34. This is a great point in Obama's favor.

I hope all Dems use this for a model in the future. Not only does it limit the big-money influence, it might also limit those advisors that are hired by the campaigns because of their ties to big-money.