John King is showing a graph comparing what Goldman Sachs contributed to

[gateley]

Dems and Reps. I'm really surprised that the Dem's received the lion's share. Ditto with Presidential campaign contributions. Really - I'm stunned. I always always always assume (I know) that the corporations/banks/oil companies give much more to the Reps. :wow: And it have to admit, I find this kind of upsetting. I'll see if I can find and add the graphs he was using.

EDIT to add chart:

[Xipe Totec]

1. To the victor go the spoils

to the incumbent go the campaign contributions.

[gateley]

24. Right, but it's been going on longer than that:

[FiveGoodMen]

2. My guess: The fat cats knew that Dems were going to win this time

So they started bribing the guys and gals who would soon be in positions of power.

[gateley]

13. They've been doing it since 1990 -- and big time during the Bush admin - I added

the graph in my OP. I just don't get it.

[FiveGoodMen]

28. Hmmm. Okay, revised guess: They've been investing extra money to corrupt the only party that MIGHT

fight them.

And from the past three years' results, I'd say that worked pretty well for them.

(Still just guessing, of course)

[gateley]

43. God, maybe. There's some heavy stuff coming down on them now, though --

we'll see if the Dems rush to their side to protect them. Protect them further, I guess I should say.

[paulsby]

54. this time? can you even read a graph?

the stats go back many years prior to "this time"

before ya kneejerk an excuse, look at the data

[gateley]

57. The graph wasn't there when FiveGoodMen posted the first response -- I added

it after, and then FiveGoodMen revised his/her opinion.

[paulsby]

64. i apologize then

and not much more to say than that

[gateley]

65. ...

:hi:

[gateley]

66. ...

:hi:

[alittlelark]

3. They knew b*sh had destroyed the R's chances.

[Ian David]

9. Good point. Why buy someone with no power?

Isn't that the what the Republicans used for why no Democrats were going to jail between 2000-2008?

[Skittles]

4. ???

you're surprised? You haven't heard how cozy Obama is with Goldman Sachs?

[gateley]

14. No -- I hadn't heard that. But they've been doing it for years, and it really

took a leap during Bush's administration.

[Oregone]

5. Their ship was sinking so they bought off the party coming into power

(before they came into power)

These contributions have a historically high proven ROI. It makes good business sense to have the people dominating the legislative process on your side.

[gateley]

17. Here's the graph -- they've historically favored Dems it seems. Look at the

jump during Bushco's reign!

[Ian David]

6. You have to pay at least three times as much to buy a Democrat.

On the other hand, Republican Rick Santorum was willing to kill The National Weather Service and NOAA for a mere $2,000.

Why isn't more being said/done about the Accuweather/Santorum kickback?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2350414

Republicans come cheap.

[gateley]

18. You know, you probably have a point there -- interesting. nt

[Change Happens]

7. We can have our cake and eat it too! No problem....nt

[madokie]

8. I'd be real suspicious of puke suck ass john kings numbers

actually

[gateley]

20. It came from Open Secrets, they're not John King's numbers -- here it is:

[amborin]

76. how about open secrets?

according to open secrets:

Health Sector Totals to Candidates
Display: Select a Sector Agribusiness Communications/Electronics Construction Defense Energy/Natural Resources Finance/Insurance/Real Estate Health Lawyers & Lobbyists Transportation Misc Business Labor Ideology/Single-Issue Other

Total to these candidates: $41,912,484 (Dems 66.7% and Repubs 33.1%)

Health
Obama, Barack $19,462,986
McCain, John $7,389,547
Clinton, Hillary $6,397,849
Romney, Mitt $2,283,350
Giuliani, Rudy $2,075,197
Paul, Ron $828,483
Richardson, Bill $778,170
Edwards, John $587,941
Thompson, Fred $537,429
Huckabee, Mike $491,202
Dodd, Chris $339,850
Biden, Joe $283,880
Brownback, Sam $108,580
Thompson, Tommy $67,811
Nader, Ralph $62,251

[boston bean]

10. ahem...

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/10/obama_interviewed_by_brokaw_at.html#more

WASHINGTON--On May 3, 2007, Barack Obama attended an event at the Museum of Modern Art in Manhattan that was not on his public schedule and is only now surfacing--a private dinner for Goldman Sachs traders with a discussion on issues moderated for the Wall Street firm by NBC's Tom Brokaw.

[gateley]

23. Sigh. I hate that. But it appears they've favored the Dems for years:

[high density]

11. So the Republicans get a free pass on a blanket "NO" filibuster...

...because the Democrats got money from GS? (Then later on the GOP will say that the Democrats did nothing in regards to Wall St reform.)

[gateley]

25. No -- not at all. My only point is that I was really surprised at this -- as I said,

to me it's always been a given that the Reps are the recipients of the largesse. Here's the graph -- it's been going on for a while, not just since Obama took office.

And look at the Bush reign years! That really shocks me. But as someone else said, Reps come cheaper than Dems, and I think that may be a valid point.



I found it on Open Secrets

[madinmaryland]

12. Not surprising. Wall Street has over the last few years donated

just as generously to the Dems as the pubs.

[gateley]

27. Here -- check out the Bush years:

I can understand giving equally to each party, hedging their bets, but this is almost a slap in the R's face.

[Webster Green]

15. No surprise. They hedged their bets on everything else.

That's what they do. :think:

[gateley]

30. Yeah, but look at the difference in the past several years -- it's more than

hedging their bets (which I think would be pretty much equal, with maybe a little extra to the party in power...)

[Webster Green]

39. '04 is interesting. They knew Kerry was going to win, which he did, of course.

Would have been nice if Kerry was allowed to serve, but Rove & Blackwell had that one figured out.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

69. Why post the same image over and over? It's in the OP, we saw it the first time. -nt

[alstephenson]

31. Point well taken!

[MannyGoldstein]

16. Let's Review The Two Major Parties In The US

One party helps the Predator Class every chance it gets. The other party is simply nuts.

The Predators gave to the former.

[gateley]

33. Hi Manny --

I knew that was you even before I read your username. :7 :hi:

I hate that you may be right.

[MannyGoldstein]

67. Yikes! How Did You Know It Was Me?

Raging cynicism? Clever point?

[gateley]

72. Exactly. All three. :-) nt

[blm]

19. Because it was OBVIOUS by October 2006 that ANY Dem nominee would win in 2008. Even FOX covered

their asses just so they could SAY they're unbiased and pull up a chart.

John King is doing exactly what he needs to do to confuse the watchers into believing Wall Street has been in league with Democrats all these years the GOP has been allowing them the room to lie, cheat and steal from the rest of the country.

[MannyGoldstein]

22. Robert Rubin Was A Republican?

Tim Geithner actually *was* a Republican - he switched parties under Clinton because the Democrats had become the party of Wall Street.

[blm]

34. Listen...we KNOW what they do. And a Pres Clinton WOULDN'T have investigated Goldman-Sachs

and a Pres Obama is letting it happen.

Let it happen and let the chips fall where they may. But...let's not for a second believe that Wall St gets serviced by Dems MORE than GOPs. GOPs service Wall St at the EXPENSE of the working class, while Dems impose some reasonable controls.

[gateley]

47. I don't think you were addressing this to me, but I don't believe that the

Dems "service" Wall Street more than the GOP, and I agree that the Dems impose controls, which I guess is why this was such a jaw-dropper to me. It's kind of like the rug has been pulled out from under me. Not that I'm disillusioned (although that happens frequently), but just that it was such a deep-seated belief of mine that big $$$ contributions ALWAYS go to the Reps. And the differences shown aren't inconsequential.

The presidential campaign info (I got this from Open Secrets, by the way), shows that GS gave a LOT more to Obama than to McCain, but that makes sense, it was obvious McCain wouldn't be elected.

It's just that over the years they've consistently given more to the Dems.

Just when I think I know all the answers... :7

[frylock]

26. was it obvious in 1990 that the dem nominee would win in 2008?

check the graph.

[blm]

36. I get the whole money to NY Dems, Rubin, etc,but, GOPs service Wall St at the EXPENSE of the rest

of the country while Dems have usually put greater guidelines on them. Why pretend otherwise? If you BELIEVE Dems have protected Wall St thieves more than GOPs then why even BE here?

[frylock]

42. i come here for LBN..

i hold no allegiance to the dems.

[blm]

71. It's not allegiance to acknowledge most Dems seek stricter guidelines for finance industry while

ALL Repubs do what they can to protect finance industry from oversight.

It's called accuracy.

[dems_rightnow]

32. Pay attention

Goldman Sacs, for whatever reason, has heavily favored the Democratic Party with contributions for a long time now. That's counterintuitive, I knw. But it's true.

[blm]

38. I get that...and have always been uneasy about Rubin, though when Dems are able they impose SOME

restrictions that end up benefiting the country's economy while GOPs do nothing for ANYONE else in the country BUT the filthy rich.

[gateley]

48. Well I've certainly learned that today. And I gotta admit, it's a shocker (which

is why I posted this thread -- kind of a WFT???)

[gateley]

35. It began before 2006 -- here's the graph.

And although I don't represent John King (:)) they're not his numbers, I got the graph from Open Secrets, and Goldman IS in the new these days.

[blm]

41. King is representing this story in a way that diverts attention away from the REALITY of Wall St's

SERIOUSLY DAMAGING relationship with the GOP.

[gateley]

50. Well conventional wisdom has always been 'follow the money' so that's a valid

indicator in many instances.

I know it was King (I switched to CNN because Tweety's show was being repeated) so I'm aware of the spin -- but you can't spin the numbers. That's what surprised me -- it just flew in the face of my "knowing" that big $$$ = Republicans.

Live and learn. :7

[branders seine]

21. Why do you think Tim Geithner was the Treasury Sec, ?

Why do you think Obama played bush's bagman so gleefully for the trillions in loot for the banksters?

The DLC and other conserva-dems are every bit as corporate as any rapublican ever has been.

[gateley]

37. Geithner has always bothered me (but Obama didn't heed my advice to appoint

Paul Krugman or Richard Reich -- I know, hard to believe)

I know the DLC is pretty much as bad as the Reps, but I never viewed Obama as DLC.

I hate this.

[branders seine]

46. me too

:shrug:

[frylock]

29. i'd really like to say that i'm surprised..

but this is just one of the many reasons that my voter reg has me as decline to state.

[gateley]

40. So you know how I feel. We're not naive, we know that it's always all about

the money, I just always thought the majority of the money went to THEM!

[Jennicut]

44. Jon Crozine and Robert Rubin were both Chairmen of Goldman Sachs. Corzine was CEO in 1994 as well.

Jaime Dimon, Mr. J.P. Morgan, considers himself a Democrat. Not all business leaders, as reprehensible as they are, are Rethugs. in the late 80's the Dem party moved to the center and was very DLC-ish.

[dorkulon]

45. It's the DLC/CAP third way: Give the bankers what they want in return for money and power.

Dems can't really take oil money without us getting mad, so they take it from Wall St., Pharma, telecommunications and other "clean" industries.

[Captain Hilts]

63. PhRMA gives much more to Republicans because of the 'tort reform' support. Bill Bradley,

being from NJ was a 'ho for PhRMA though. There are other Dems as well. But PhRMA is much tighter with Republicans.

[amborin]

77. look at health corporations' massive donations to Obama:

according to open secrets:

Health Sector Totals to Candidates
Display: Select a Sector Agribusiness Communications/Electronics Construction Defense Energy/Natural Resources Finance/Insurance/Real Estate Health Lawyers & Lobbyists Transportation Misc Business Labor Ideology/Single-Issue Other

Total to these candidates: $41,912,484 (Dems 66.7% and Repubs 33.1%)

Health
Obama, Barack $19,462,986
McCain, John $7,389,547
Clinton, Hillary $6,397,849
Romney, Mitt $2,283,350
Giuliani, Rudy $2,075,197
Paul, Ron $828,483
Richardson, Bill $778,170
Edwards, John $587,941
Thompson, Fred $537,429
Huckabee, Mike $491,202
Dodd, Chris $339,850
Biden, Joe $283,880
Brownback, Sam $108,580
Thompson, Tommy $67,811
Nader, Ralph $62,251

[DCBob]

49. Goldman doesnt need to donate much to influence GOPers, they already have them in their back pocket.

Dems are a tougher nut to crack.

[gateley]

51. Yeah, somebody else made that point, and I think it may be a valid one. Although,

the difference is pretty surprising (especially the past few years).

[EFerrari]

52. This is not new information. n/t

[gateley]

56. Boy, it sure is to me! That's why I was so surprised. I still am. nt

[EFerrari]

58. opensecrets.org has all kinds of good information on donations

if you want to check it in the future.

The information that Wall Street picked Obama over McGramps was available ahead of the election.

[gateley]

61. I used to refer to it during the primaries (so I could holler that others were

being bought, and weep that my guy (Biden) wasn't getting much at all), but I just don't think of it much any more. I appreciate the reminder.

Now picking O over McC makes a lot of sense -- that I could understand. And I think Xithras gave a really good reason for the results shown on the graph -- that Goldman (and those of their ilk) will grease the palms of those who can affect them the most. In Goldman's case, the financial centers -- NY, CA and others, are in predominantly Democratic areas. S/he stated it much better than I just did, but you get the gist.

[Xithras]

53. There's a simple reason for this.

Goldmans primary focus is to minimize regulations in states where their financial centers are. Those financial centers are overwhelmingly located in areas with Democratic Senators, Representatives, and other political leadership (New York, California, Delaware, Mass, etc).

When you're greasing political palms, you grease the palms that have the most direct impact on you. In Goldman's case, that's a Democrat more often than not.

[gateley]

59. That makes a LOT of sense. I never think of the simple, logical reason, so thanks. nt

[chollybocker]

55. It proves that Republicans can be bought more cheaply than Democrats.

And they call themselves the party of fiscal responsibility?? ;)

[Marr]

60. Wall Street loves their neoliberal salesmen, yes.

I'm surprised at the disparity spiking after 2000, however. It's not what I would've expected.

[gateley]

62. This response makes a lot of sense -- wonder how it would track if we

went back to see how elections went compared to the years.

Xithras (1000+ posts) Tue Apr-20-10 05:20 PM
Response to Original message

53. There's a simple reason for this.

Goldmans primary focus is to minimize regulations in states where their financial centers are. Those financial centers are overwhelmingly located in areas with Democratic Senators, Representatives, and other political leadership (New York, California, Delaware, Mass, etc).

When you're greasing political palms, you grease the palms that have the most direct impact on you. In Goldman's case, that's a Democrat more often than not.

[dorkulon]

68. Wow, look at everyone scrambling to rationalize this.

What, you didn't know that you supported corrupt incrementalists? Go team blue!

[jeanpalmer]

70. Looks like Obama got a $million from them

Reid also took money. As did many others. But Obama got the most of any one candidate.

http://preview.bloomberg.com/news/2010-04-20/goldman-employees-donated-1-million-to-obama-campaign.html

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/04/20/2275442.aspx

[PBS Poll-435]

73. LOL

Imagine. New Yorkers/North Easterners providing contributions to Democrats.

Crazy!



:wtf:

[amborin]

74. Obama got more $$$ from Goldman Sachs than any other candidate:

Goldman Sachs $994,795 ***********
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290 ************
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132 *************
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881 *****************
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835



Obama also got more from health insurance corps than any other candidate

[amborin]

75. Obama got $$$19.4 million from health insurance corporations in campaign donations:

according to open secrets:

Health Sector Totals to Candidates
Display: Select a Sector Agribusiness Communications/Electronics Construction Defense Energy/Natural Resources Finance/Insurance/Real Estate Health Lawyers & Lobbyists Transportation Misc Business Labor Ideology/Single-Issue Other

Total to these candidates: $41,912,484 (Dems 66.7% and Repubs 33.1%)

Health
Obama, Barack $19,462,986
McCain, John $7,389,547
Clinton, Hillary $6,397,849
Romney, Mitt $2,283,350
Giuliani, Rudy $2,075,197
Paul, Ron $828,483
Richardson, Bill $778,170
Edwards, John $587,941
Thompson, Fred $537,429
Huckabee, Mike $491,202
Dodd, Chris $339,850
Biden, Joe $283,880
Brownback, Sam $108,580
Thompson, Tommy $67,811
Nader, Ralph $62,251