Obama's #1 Contributor - 656 million from WE THE PEOPLE.

[phleshdef]

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

Individual contributions $656,357,572 88%
PAC contributions $1,830 0%
Candidate self-financing $0 0%
Federal Funds $0 0%
Other $88,626,223 12%

I don't know why certain people, even people that I respect and admire like Michael Moore, are experiencing such a mental moment right now over the fact that certain individuals employed by Goldman Sachs, (which employs something like 32,000 people)were among the individual contributors (that includes myself and every single DUer that contributed to the Obama campaign). Its well known that your employer gets recorded when you contribute.

Criticizing policies that you don't like is one thing. But there is ZERO merit in the insinuation that Goldman Sachs as a company somehow funded the Obama campaign in any amount of significance. The Obama 2008 campaign was the biggest, most successful, most contributed to campaign in AMERICAN HISTORY. And it was funded undeniably by a grass roots effort, in small donations, coming from individuals just like myself and YOU. This isn't disputable in the least and it use to be a well known fact back during the campaign. I can't believe how soon some forget.

Lets put an end to this silly smear job now before the facts get lost in the foamy mouthed phony outrage. All policies aside, Barack Obama ran a clean campaign and it was the most truly publically funded campaign of all time (in that general public supporters like you and me overwhelmingly funded it). If you can't take pride in having supported Obama for any other reason, this alone was and always will be something to be proud of.

[Clio the Leo]

1. Thank you. NT

[Starbucks Anarchist]

2. Facts and reading comprehension make people cry.

:cry:

[sabrina 1]

92. So, we owe George Bush an apology then?

The rules regarding corporate support for a campaign have changed. Bush, like Obama, 'did not receive all those donations from the CORPORATION, they both received them from 'INDIVIDUALS'.

At least let's not be hypocritical. Bush was vilified for the corporate support he received, when in fact, the rules were the same when he was a candidate.

It's the hypocrisy that I am seeing on the 'left' that bothers me the most. Let's try at least to be honest. If Obama's corporate support is going to be excused, then the same rules need to be applied to Bush.

[amborin]

3. even if true, it's sad; Obama has reneged on campaign promises and dismissed the people's wishes

such as for a public option

health care "reform" was a travesty; a subsidy to health insurance corporations; and Wall St. "reform" isn't looking much better

[phleshdef]

5. If you want to change the topic to argue about that BS, make your own thread.

[NanceGreggs]

20. I just REC'D your OP ...

Now I wish I could REC your reply, as well.

:patriot:

[Cha]

38. You just did.

:patriot::)

[WheelWalker]

74. Head. Nail. On the.

[NYC Liberal]

10. Yeah ok. Or not.

[ShortnFiery]

23. NO, check the fine print? It will permit large banks to absorb both smaller ones and credit unions.

:scared:

It looks real good on the surface and "slaps a few hands" of the big wig looting but, in essence, it's a big fat wet kiss to huge banks like Goldman Sachs.

Anyone seeing a pattern here?

[Flying Dream Blues]

36. To your posts? Why yes, indeed! nt

[Qutzupalotl]

99. ...

:spray:
















:rofl:



















:rofl:

[LSK]

77. The PO was NEVER part of his campaign

It was in John Edwards plan and thats why many favored Edwards at 1st over Obama.

[Number23]

4. Rec'd!

:yourock:

[Enrique]

6. put an end to people looking where the president gets his money?

I doubt it. People will always be looking at campaign finance, whether it's Obama or the democrats or the republicans.

And Open Secrets and other sites add up the individual contributions from a company and present those figures, and people find those totals useful, and I'm one of those people, and Michael Moore is another.

And all of us have always found those figures useful when it's about politicians other than Obama. It's never, before Obama, been considered a conspiracy theory to look at the contributions from corporations' employees.

[phleshdef]

7. In what world does what I wrote come close to suggesting that?

I'm saying put an end to suggesting there is some signigicant funding tie to the Obama 08 campaign and Goldman Sachs CEOs which is exactly what Moore and others are doing. The reason that should be stopped is because its the same thing as spreading an outright LIE.

[Enrique]

11. what did Moore say?

all I know is that he mentioned that Goldman was Obama's #1 private source of contributions.

What's this about "significant funding tie to the Obama 08 campaign and Goldman Sachs CEOs". Did he actually say that?

[phleshdef]

14. According to whats been posted, he said there should be criminal investigations.

[Enrique]

18. I agree with him

don't you?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

8. No, the problem is looking for conspiracies when simple research proves otherwise.

It's no better than people who rail on about "death panels" without reading the HC bill first.

[Enrique]

12. what conspiracies?

all i read is that Moore mentioned the statistic on Larry King. What are the conspiracies?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

13. Moore said GS was Obama's #1 private contributor, which is highly misleading.

He failed to provide the context of individual employees donating (especially since GS is a huge employer here), so his implication is that the top brass at GS bribed him with a check or something equally nefarious. As you can see from the threads on it, many DUers took Moore's disingenuous implication as proof that Obama is in cahoots with GS when all it was was individual employees from a corporation with a large labor pool.

Moore also said there should be a criminal investigation, which is another way to fan the flames of a non-issue.

[Enrique]

17. 62 members of Congress call for criminal investigation of Goldman

pretty much the Progressive Caucus agree with Moore on the non-issue.

http://act.boldprogressives.org/cms/sign/letter_wallstreet_criminal/

[Starbucks Anarchist]

27. But Moore mentioned the investigation after the misleading stat of campaign contrbutions to Obama.

According to an earlier thread posted by someone else:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x280380

So that implies GS directly influenced Obama through corporate contributions when that wasn't the case.

[Cha]

42. Thank you for patiently explaining that...

It wasn't the case at all.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

44. It's a full-time job sometimes.

:rofl:

(Watch that comment be turned into another stupid "cheerleader" retort)

[chill_wind]

19. ? Moore said there should a criminal investigation into what, exactly?

Are you saying he says there should be a criminal investigation into campaign finance money?

Or was he saying Gold Sachs should be investigated for fraud (per the calls from Congress members).
How would that be a non-issue?

I didn't catch his appearance tonite, but it almost sounds like his comments are being conflated by various posters here?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

28. I didn't see it either, but posters are conflating the two, apparently.

[Carnage251]

9. I was a college freshman then and I donated what i could

I wonder if both parties will take public financing in the general 2010 election?

[stevenleser]

15. There are people desperate to project their narrative at every turn. Progressives against Obama are

such people.

[girl gone mad]

22. Nah. More like..

we can add exposing financial fraud and highlighting the corruption that exists between Wall St. and our Federal Government to the long list of things progressives have been dead right about.

[ShortnFiery]

24. Can you honestly believe that? It was liberals such as myself who helped get him elected.

If you think it brings us joy to realize such a big deception of the American People, you are sadly mistaken. It breaks my heart but I have to face THE TRUTH. If you are an intellectually curious person of average intelligence, you'll either come over to our side or remain willfully ignorant. However, the cognitive dissonance must be overwhelming by now?

[mkultra]

30. you forgot to quote the word: "Progressives"

as they aren't really progressives.

[chill_wind]

16. There are plenty of other spheres of influence

to consider. Lloyd Blankfein alone gave $28,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in 07. It isn't just what these guys want from Barack Obama alone.

I just got finished reading somewhere that 49% of all his money came from small individual grassroots donars like us. That's not trivial, but it's only half of the picture.

It is what it is. Corporate money in campaign finance politics is a political reality for all politicians running for high office, and that won't change until/IF that is ever overhauled some (unlikely) day.

REALITY CHECK: Obama Received About the Same Percentage from Small Donors in 2008 as Bush in 2004
Obama also raised 80% more from large donors than small, outstripping all rivals and predecessors.

It turns out that Barack Obama's donors may not have been quite as different as we had thought. Throughout the election season, this organization and others have been reporting that Obama received about half of his discrete contributions in amounts of $200 or less. The Campaign Finance Institute (CFI) noted in past releases that donations are not the same as donors, since many people give more than once. After a more thorough analysis of data from the Federal Election Commission (FEC), it has become clear that repeaters and large donors were even more important for Obama than we or other analysts had fully appreciated.

"The myth is that money from small donors dominated Barack Obama's finances," said CFI's executive director Michael J. Malbin. "The reality of Obama's fundraising was impressive, but the reality does not match the myth."

Main Small Donor Findings

To look more fully at presidential candidates' fundraising during this cycle, CFI conducted an extensive analysis of FEC records to identify repeat donors and to categorize each donor's giving according to the cumulative amount he or she gave over the course of a full election cycle.

Although an unusually high percentage (49%) of Obama's funds came in discrete contributions of $200 or less (see Table 3), only 26% of his money through August 31 (and 24% of his funds through October 15, according to the most recent FEC reports) came from donors whose total contributions aggregated to $200 or less. Obama's 26% compares to 25% for George W. Bush in 2004, 20% for John Kerry in 2004, 21% for John McCain in 2008, 13% for Hillary Clinton in 2008, and 38% for Howard Dean in 2004.

(see tables etc)

Conclusion

None of these findings denies the importance of either Obama's appeal to repeat donors or his innovative use of online social networking tools to interweave appeals for contributions and critically important campaign volunteers. In particular, Obama did attract repeaters who have not been part of the traditional large-dollar, reception-attending fundraising crowd. The fact is that Obama's financial juggernaut broke records at all contribution levels. The reality does not match the myth, but the reality itself was impressive.

more: http://www.cfinst.org/press/PReleases/08-11-24/Realty_Check_-_Obama_Small_Donors.aspx

I'd ultimately agree-- the reality itself was very impressive.

[girl gone mad]

21. Okay then, let's just ignore the donations from Goldman, as you wish.

There's still that little matter of the seemingly endless ties the administration has to the vampire squid.

From http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/21/92637/goldmans-connections-to-white.html">McClatchy:

While Goldman Sachs' lawyers negotiated with the Securities and Exchange Commission over potentially explosive civil fraud charges, Goldman's chief executive visited the White House at least four times.

White House logs show that Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein traveled to Washington for at least two events with President Barack Obama, whose 2008 presidential campaign received $994,795 in donations from Goldman's employees and their relatives. He also met twice with Obama's top economic adviser, Larry Summers.

Meanwhile, however, Goldman is retaining former Obama White House counsel Gregory Craig as a member of its legal team. In addition, when he worked as an investment banker in Chicago a decade ago, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel advised one client who also retained Goldman as an adviser on the same $8.2 billion deal.

Goldman's connections to the White House and the Obama administration are raising eyebrows at a time when Washington and Wall Street are dueling over how to overhaul regulation of the financial world.

Lawrence Jacobs, a University of Minnesota political scientist, said that "almost everything that the White House has done has been haunted by the personnel and the money of Goldman . . . as well as the suspicion that the White House, particularly early on, was pulling its punches out of deference to Goldman and its war chest.

"There's now kind of a magnifying glass on the administration for any sign of interference or conversations with the regulators and the judiciary," Jacobs said.

According to White House visitor logs, Blankfein was among the business leaders who attended an Obama speech on Feb. 13, 2009, and he also joined more than a dozen bank CEOs in a meeting with Obama on March 27, 2009.

Blankfein also was supposed be among the CEOs who met with Obama in December, but he and two others phoned in from New York, blaming inclement weather.

He and his wife, Laura, were listed on the logs among 438 presidential guests at the Kennedy Center Honors the previous week.

The logs also indicate that Blankfein met twice in 2009, on Feb. 4 and Sept. 30, with Summers, who was undersecretary of the Treasury Department during the Clinton administration when it was headed by Robert Rubin, a former Goldman CEO.

One White House insider who knows something about how Wall Street does business is chief of staff Emanuel, who earned millions of dollars in investment banking after he left the Clinton White House. His work for the Chicago-based financial services firm Wasserstein Perella & Co. intersected with Goldman in at least one deal.

In 1999, Emanuel was a key player representing Unicom Corp., the parent of Commonwealth Edison, in forging its merger with Peco Energy Co. to create utility giant Exelon Corp. Goldman was also advising Unicom.

Several former Goldman executives hold senior positions in the Obama administration, including Gary Gensler, the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; Mark Patterson, a former Goldman lobbyist who is chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner; and Robert Hormats, the undersecretary of state for economic, energy and agricultural affairs.

Sorry, but the administration does need to answer for the actions they've taken with regard to the financial bailouts. To say they have loose ethics is putting it mildly. This country is going to be paying the price for decades, and those who have kept track of the looting by Wall Street and Washington want to see thieves held accountable.

[phleshdef]

31. There were no donations from Goldman as some are trying to insinuate.

If you want to discuss other issues, start your own fucking thread.

[girl gone mad]

78. You didn't address my points at all.

This is a public forum and I posted a perfectly valid line of discussion pertaining to your assertion that the millions in donations from Goldman had no effect on policy because the money came from individuals, therefore it's supposedly untainted.

Okay, let's go along with your (in my opinion absurd) supposition. You still need to explain why it is that the administration has so many ties to Goldman Sachs and why they went to such extremes to rescue the company from its own failures during the financial collapse.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

50. SEIU's Andy Stern visited the WH 22 times.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/10/30/seius-stern-tops-white-house-visitor-list/tab/article/

Far more than Goldman's CEO. And the rest of your link is tenuous at best. As an investment banker, Rahm Emanuel happened upon Goldman in a field where they are a big player? The horror!

[girl gone mad]

81. Quick question..

would you say Andy Stern was trying to influence policy on any of those visits?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

90. Obviously.

But if you're trying to draw a parallel here, it doesn't work. The visits mentioned in the article primarily refer to the well-publicized meetings Obama had with bank CEOs regarding the bailout and the economy. You're implying the GS CEO met with Obama in secret away from the eyes of the media.

And if meeting with Obama a few times was indicative of GS' influence, what do Stern's 22 visits say about his influence?

[MadHound]

25. Why don't you try offering the full facts?

Oh, yeah, they're inconvenient.

<http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638>

Lawyers, the number one industrial donors, finance, number five.

<http://images.opensecrets.org/obama_top_contribs.htm?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638>

Number two donor, Goldman Sachs, numbers six and seven, Citigroup and JP Morgan.

Facts matter, and the fact is you left off that inconvenient fact that corporate donors, both Democratic and Republican like to bundle donations. If we ignored bundling in Bush's campaigns, then we could say he got most of his money from individual donations as well. But Dems didn't give Bush a pass on bundling, why should we give a pass to Obama?

[phleshdef]

29. The facts are that individual SMALL donations made up the vast majority of Obama 08 contributions.

But keep on with your Glen Beck bullshit. We always need more of that here at DU.

[MadHound]

32. You're sticking words in my mouth, the fact is I didn't say anything about majority, etc.

In fact I'll let the figures speak for themselves, there are intelligent people around here who can do the math.

What I did say is that your OP was disingenuous, that you were only giving out part of the facts, and proceeded to link to the rest of the facts. If you don't like those facts, take it up with Open Secrets:shrug:

Meanwhile, what is also a fact is that bundling happens in both parties, it is the way the campaign contribution game is played. Don't you think that if we damned Bush when he did it, we should at least be intellectually and ethically honest and damn it when Obama does it?

Here is some more information on Obama's bundling during his campaign. Again, I'll let you do the math.

"Senator Obama has benefited significantly from “bundling,” which involves supporters collecting smaller contributions, putting them all together, and giving them to a politician. According to Public Citizens’s White House for Sale Web site, Barack’s had 262 “bundlers” each gather at least $50,000 for him. One is Commonwealth Edison chairman Frank Clark. Perhaps the utility’s millions of customers who saw rates skyrocket by 24 percent on average wish he’d spend less time on politics and more on providing energy at a reasonable cost."

<http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_Obama/Campaign_Financing>

"In addition, two oil industry executives are bundling money for Obama – drumming up contributions from individuals and turning them over to the campaign. George Kaiser, the chairman of Oklahoma-based Kaiser-Francis Oil Co., ranks 68th on the Forbes list of world billionaires. He's listed on Obama's Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the candidate. Robert Cavnar is president and CEO of Milagro Exploration LLC, an oil exploration and production company. He's named as a bundler in the same category as Kaiser."

<http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_oil_spill.html>

Again, if we condemn the Republicans when they do it, shouldn't we be intellectually and ethically honest and condemn the Democrats when they do it as well?

What would be best is if we took corporate money out of government altogether via publicly financed campaigns. Then we wouldn't have to worry about corporate influence over our politicians.

[phleshdef]

34. NOTHING was disingenious. Those facts aren't inconvenient to my point at all.

You are missing the point altogether, otherwise you would save yourself some typing time.

I'll lay it out for you nice and easy.

Some are suggesting that because people employed by GS contributed to the campaign, that Goldman Sachs somehow influenced the administration with contributions. I was pointing out how ridiculous that is.

If you want to take on the nature of campaign contributions and campaign finance reform, thats great, start your own thread.

[MadHound]

45. What I'm simply pointing out is the rest of the story,

You are completely ignoring the role of bundling, how it works to corrupt our leaders. We justifiably criticized Bush when he was receiving bundled "individual" donations from people who worked at various oil companies. Why? Because we were intelligent enough to realize that these bundled "individual" donations were really the collected monetary contributions of the company that these people worked for. We also recognized that these bundled "individual" donations were that company's ploy to sway the opinions of the Bush administration in regards to that company's policy's, and it worked.

Fast forward to 2008 and Obama is getting bundled "individual" donations from various companies, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup among others. The same dynamic is in play, these companies are attempting to, through their collective, bundled, "individual" donations trying to sway policy in the Obama administration.

I have linked to the same source you used, which shows that the financial sector was one of Obama's top sectors for monetary donations. Using that same source I've shown that Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Citigroup donated millions of dollars using bundling. I've also shown that yes, Obama actually did use bundled "individual" donations to fund his campaign. Now then, if you are saying that these "individual" donations are legit, innocent campaign donations to Obama, then you must make the same claim for Bush as well. So is that we're you're telling me, that Bush's donations were legit, above board and didn't influence his administration?

[phleshdef]

52. No you are inventing a "Story" where there is none to be found.

And all that source shows is that a micro-fraction of donations came from Goldman Sachs, bundled or unbundled when compared to total donations. It just further backs up my point.

And I never claimed any candidates donations were not legit. I don't know how legit Bush's campaign money was and never made a claim one way or the other. Stop trying to invent arguments where there are none. I don't believe Bush needed donations to his campaign to have his administration influenced by the wrong people. Cheney, as we know, was getting kickbacks completely outside the realm of political contributions. And Bush had a shady agenda that well transcended simple greed for money.

You can stop attempting to beat me over the head with arguments I never made now.

[MadHound]

59. No, I'm simply pointing out that Obama's campaign wasn't as clean as you and others

Are trying to portray it. Obama got substantial help from corporate America, that is an undeniable fact. The question becomes what price is to be paid for that help.

You're trying to say that all of Obama's funding was grass roots, I've shown otherwise. I'm also pointing out the hypocrisy of those who blamed Bush for being bought and sold by bundled donations, yet are mum when it comes to Obama receiving bundled donations.

You're scolding of Moore, in light of these facts that I've shown you, rings hollow. A million dollars came from Goldman Sachs, now then, who do you think has got more leverage with the administration, Goldman Sachs, with their million dollar donation, or me, with my hundred dollar donation? Yeah, that's the problem, government bought and sold by the highest bidder.

Oh, and I suggest you calm down a bit. Not only are you needlessly posting multiple times to my single post, but you sound like you're about to bust a gasket. Of course that simply could be due to the fact that you can't handle the truth. My suggestion, put the politics down and back away slowly from the computer.

[phleshdef]

61. You attempted to point out something that wasn't there, as has been shown.

Goldman Sachs didn't give Obama a million dollars. And your bundling nonsense was shot to shreds in a post on down below from this one. I proved that the Obama campaign did in fact get the vast majority of its money from individuals NOT bundled and NOT from any PAC. NOTHING you have said has shown anything to suggest that Goldman or any other corporation had ANY measure of influence through contributions. Even looking at those numbers in the most skeptical of light, its laughable because the amounts are PENNIES compared to the total amount of money that was taken through contributions from individuals.

Being condescending towards me because I am getting a little angry with your bullshit does not make you any less wrong. You can resort to that tactic all you like, it will not work with me.

[MadHound]

65. Oh geez, do I have to go over all of this with you again?

You've got the Open Secrets links, go look at them. Do you think they're lying? They flat out state that Goldman Sachs gave the Obama campaign via bundling. It's right there in black and white. This is the point that I proved, shooting down your original contention in your OP that Moore was wrong. He wasn't, I'm not, but you are.

Face it, Obama got a substantial boost, especially early in his campaign, from bundled donations that came from various corporations. We condemned this practice when it was done by Bush, shouldn't we condemn it when Obama does it? Hypocrisy much?

As far as the amount that Goldman Sachs donated in relation to the size of total donations, you obviously don't get how big business and big politics works. Look at that chart, Goldman Sachs was the second biggest single donor! Hello, you don't think that doesn't buy some influence?

Apparently you simply don't want to accept these facts, but would rather continue to argue around and around in circles, somehow hoping that the facts will change with each passage. They won't, so you might as well face the facts head on. But hey, if you want to "get a little angry", throwing multiple post temper tantrums to make up for your lack of a factual basis to stand on, hey, by all means, go for it. It provides great entertainment, and I'm not the one acting like a little kid stomping around and pouting.

But frankly, if all you're going to do is argue this around in circles, I'm done with you, it is pointless. So unless you come up with something to refute these facts that I've presented, I'll move on because I have much better things to do, like continue to educate myself. I would suggest you do the same, especially the part about educating yourself.

[phleshdef]

66. A complete lie in your very first sentence.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/bundlers.php?id=N00009638

Thats the list of bundled donations given to Obama. Thats ALL of them. Only THREE of those items listed are bundled by Goldman Sachs and of those 3, it adds up to less than 200,000. So out of the one million, 20% came from bundling, the rest came from individuals employed by Goldman Sachs.

The problem here is that you are reading Open Secrets information and knee jerk reacting to what you are reading without actually bothering to figure out what it means.

FACE IT, there was no substantial amount of bundled donations. The vast majority of donations STILL CAME FROM INDIVIDUALS AND WERE NOT BUNDLED.

I know you are done with me though, because you have ran out of spin and had every single lie you have tried to propogate in this thread completely shot down. I'd be done with me too if I were you.

[MadHound]

67. You are naive

Do you honestly think that those two who worked for Goldman Sachs were the only ones who actually collected bundled donations from Goldman Sachs employees? You obviously have no clue as to what goes on inside a political machine.

You are also naive if you think that a million dollar donation doesn't buy influence.

Finally, that eleven percent of Obama's total funds raised is not the end all and be all of the extent of corporate contributions. PAC's, donations to the general Democratic warchest, other organizational donations, on and on.

I truly hope that you take this opportunity to educate yourself on campaign financing, because it is obvious all you know about is the spin.

[phleshdef]

68. You rely on unprovable, conspiratorial assumptions and accuse me of naivete?

And you also are willfully ignoring your own ability to comprehend what you read.

I showed that there were only 3 (correction actually it was only 2) bundles of bundled donations to the Obama campaign from Goldman Sachs and it didn't amount to pennies. It was 130,000 total. I know thats inconvenient for the argument you are trying to make, but those numbers don't lie.

If you actually believe that a million dollars, in this day and age, has a substantial amount of influence in a nationwide presidential campaign, you are sincerely out of touch with the value of money these days. Regardless, that million dollar number STILL doesn't matter because the fact remains that Goldman Sachs employs over 30,000 individuals, alot of them in Democratic leaning New York and so OF COURSE they are going to donate money to the Democratic Presidential candidate. That pathetic little red herring will never fly, no matter how much you desperately try to push it off the limb.

The fact that you bring up PACs is laughable. PAC money contributed to the Obama campaign was less than what I get in one bi weekly paycheck and I'm about as middle class as it gets.

The only person that needed educated here was you because you have thus far been unable to accurately read these contribution numbers, as has been proven. You've been unable to refute any of the factual contradictions that have been pointed out regarding your statements.

[girl gone mad]

80. You're naive.

I'll say it outright.

Also, you're using circular logic in this thread.

Corporate bundling is what it is. An attempt by corporations to influence politicians by demonstrating that they can easily raise large sums of cash in an election season. That's the sole reason they bundle in the first place rather than simply letting employees donate on their own accord.

You've lost the debate by this point, but I just wanted to sum it up for you.

[phleshdef]

83. Point out one single fact I presented that is wrong.

[girl gone mad]

86. I don't have time for those games.

The ties between Goldman and this administration are immense. Some of us have been following the trail of corruption for years now.

Yet you want to pretend that the tens of millions Goldman has spent directly and indirectly lobbying the White House and the Federal Gov. are just a mirage, a figment of our overactive imaginations.

And, of course, you've also neglected to even broach the subject of that revolving door between Wall St. and Washington whereby our elected and appointed officials magically retire from government into a life of "earning" obscene wealth from the very companies they were tasked with regulating while in office and then are re-appointed to oversee those same entities (Rubin, Summers, Geithner, Paulson..).

If you believe that your "revelation" that Goldman employees gave individual donations completely acquits the administration of any hint of wrongdoing, then you are hopelessly confused.

[phleshdef]

87. NAME JUST ONE.

[phleshdef]

70. LOL, and while I'm still laughing at your nonsense... please tell me..

Since Dreamworks bundled together 6 times the contributions that Goldman Sachs did, what kind of influence did that buy and where can we see how that influence has played out? I'm just wondering since you are an all might guru expert on political campaign contributions and all.

LOL.

[phleshdef]

54. Also, you should try reading your own link.

http://images.opensecrets.org/obama_top_contribs.htm?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

This link does not say that all the money listed came from "Bundled donations". It sais "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.".

Out of the 994,000 that has "Goldman Sachs" attached to it, the link does NOT explain how much of that came from this bundling approach you are raving and ranting on about.

[phleshdef]

55. AND finally... shooting down this bundling nonsense once and for all... 11% came from "bundling"

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/bundlers.php?id=N00009638

And the biggest Bundler was Dreamworks. OMGZ THE CONSPIRACIES.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

60. Obama's in the pocket of Big Hollywood!!!1!!

:rofl:

[phleshdef]

62. We always knew he was a celebrity!

[uponit7771]

26. Amen!!

[otohara]

33. PolitiFact Disagrees...

Obama supporters like to counter that Obama raised more money from small donors than any previous candidate for president, which is true. But Obama still needed large donors to fund his campaign. Obama implies that he won the presidency without much money from large donors, and the evidence does not support that. In fact, even if we set the bar for small donors higher -- if we stipulated that everyone who gave less than $1,000 was a small donor -- that still means 43 percent gave more. And the interviewer, John Harwood, was correct when he said Obama got about $1 million from employees of Goldman Sachs; the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics puts the number at $994,795.

Obama's skill at raising money from small donors for the 2008 campaign was significant. But Obama was also skilled at raising money from large donors. His statement was, "the vast majority of the money I got was from small donors all across the country." That's not the case. Only 32 percent of his general election money came from people who gave $200 or less. We rate his statement False. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/22/barack-obama/obama-campaign-financed-large-donors-too/

[phleshdef]

35. Actually no Politifact is further supporting my point.

1 million from GS employees is a micro-fraction of the total contributions received. And that still doesn't change the fact that the association BEGINS and ENDS with the fact that these people were employed by a company that employs tens of thousands of people. Some are trying to make it out like Goldman the company somehow financed the Obama campaign and thats what I'm arguing against because thats ludicrous as was proved.

Aside from that, you are just wrangling on about what constitutes a small contribution. I don't see why contributions between 200-1000 dollars are suddenly LARGE contributions. If I made 80-100,000 a year (which is still middle class whether you like it or not), I would have given that much. I'm an independent contractors working in IT for a company that manages radio station accounting.

My point stands and polifact doesn't contradict it at all.

[Cha]

43. I know over the course of two years..

I probably gave $1,000 to the Obama campaign and I don't have what one would call a lot of money.

But, I do have a love of country that all of us have.

[FrenchieCat]

49. Ooh! Now I'm a BIG Donor!

Who Knew!

and all this time, I figured I was a rather small tiny donor, considering that I gave like $50.00 at a time, but did so everytime something pissed me off throughout the primaries and the General...which lasted like, oh....forfuckingEver!

Guess BIG = Pissed!

Good.

[phleshdef]

58. Exactly. Plenty of regular middle class people were "large donors".

[greencharlie]

37. VERY enlightening site... nt

[Arkana]

39. Clearly this just means Obama is in the pocket of Big People.

[DevonRex]

40. Huge rec for posting the FACTS. Thank you.

You know, I donated to his campaign and I'm in the medical field. Those who oppose Obama tried to say that the "Health Care Industry" donated HUGE amounts to Obama, as if it were corporations rather than individual Democrats who simply work in the field.

I'm so fucking sick of those tactics. Thank you again.

[Cha]

41. Thanks for your OP, phlesh..

Michael Moore needs to read it. He doesn't want to ge guilty of what he rightly accuses the gNOps of doing..i.e...twisting words to make someone look bad even though the facts make it a lie.

[Mr. Sparkle]

46. K&R

[Bluenorthwest]

47. Wow, you do not even quote Moore. Why?

Because he did not say what you are claiming he said. Just because you infer does not mean it was said, hence you have to repeat what you think you heard, not actual quotes, and then castigate Moore for your perception.
He called for an investigation of Goldman, not Obama. You are twisting his words. I challenge you to quote the man's own words.
Goldman should be investigated, and indicted. Many agree with Moore. Deal with it.

[phleshdef]

48. My what a cute little tantrum you are having.

First off, no one is saying Goldman Sachs shouldn't be investigated over this damn scheme they pulled. That has ZERO to do with this thread.

This post was in response to other threads being posted here last night that insinuated that Moore was calling for an investigation because of GS contributions to the Obama campaign. If Michael Moore didn't actually mean that and I had it wrong, thats great. Unlike a lot of people here, I have no problem admitting that I got something wrong. Its easy.

Regardless, that changes NOTHING regarding the point in my post which was refuting the notion that there was significant influence from Goldman Sachs on the Obama campaign. Others were in fact trying to make that argument. If you missed those other threads, my apologies. I didn't mean to get you all cooked up into a tantrum over nothing. You should probably save your teeth gritting, chest beating, "deal with it" faux-righteous indignation for someone else.

[Bluenorthwest]

51. Tantrum?

I did not understand that this was in reference to something you'd read on other threads, where other people also made up what Moore said. I'm pointing out that if you are going to take issue with any individual, you should do that, and use their own words, or it really is not fair. Do you not agree?

[phleshdef]

53. What part of "if I was wrong about what Moore meant", then "I apologize" do you not get?

[Bluenorthwest]

56. Wow. I read that part.

Read my response again. I was just telling you I did not know about the previous dramas here, and also pointing out that my issue with this post is not about the contributions, but about not putting words into people's mouths. All I did was ask for a quote. Geez.

[phleshdef]

57. "Fair enough"... theres your quote!

Ok, I probably need to cool down a little.

[mikelgb]

63. This is OP's thread. If anyone disagrees with it GTFO and make your own op

[tekisui]

95. lol.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

96. You first. (nt)

[Change Happens]

64. Futhermore, Obama raised $750.00 million!!! Goldman Sacks gave him $1 million!

1/750th of his total donations came from GS.

[treestar]

69. K&R

[okie]

71. I don't think 2008 campaign contributions are the biggest issue

It's the influence of Goldman Sachs people on Obama and his administration. Keep in mind Goldman Sachs was a major donor to his 2006 Senate campaign, and Obama is something of a Robert Rubin protege who has surrounded himself with Rubin's people ever since hitting the national stage. People like Larry Summers, who worked under Rubin and was paid over $100,000 by Goldman Sachs for a single speaking engagement. I think it's is a big problem when a few Wall St entities have established a revolving door with the government. This means Goldman people are more likely to have the president's ear. And it means it's more likely that people in the Obama administration operate under certain assumptions about how the economy should be managed (ie, 'What's good for Wall St is good for America').

[abelenkpe]

73. Those days are over

the days of What's Good for Wall Street is good for America. Public opinion has shifted and while it's turning slowly it is turning.

For all the whining about donations and influence does any one here honestly believe that if McCain or Bush or any republican were in office that Goldman Sachs or anyone on wall street would be being investigated by the SEC? Or that financial reform would even be on anyone's mind? That alone should say something.

Personally I think Goldman Sachs is done. They signed their own death certificate over a year ago. If they survive at all they will be greatly diminished in stature and influence. The big banks too.
Insurance companies will fall as well. They gambled just as much as the banks. Their own business model will kill them. (My father is a retired insurance CEO.) We'll end up with single payer. If we don't let bigoted shit for brains idiot tea baggers gain any headway and keep pressuring our own reps to do the right thing. No it won't be easy, but we're on the right path for the first time since Reagan was in office. If your expecting everything to be magically fixed in a year or two you're setting yourself up for disappointment.

I'm not saying one shouldn't criticize the administration or believe in unicorns. Just don't lose focus of the bigger picture.

[okie]

76. I'm not sure about that

Our economy is heavily dependent on the health of the Wall St entities. And their health is dependent on playing risky financial games. Changing this structure requires a lot more than what's being talked about now. If we greatly diminish the influence of Wall St, what do we replace it with? No one asks that. Notice this cheap moralization when people talk about 'cleaning up Wall St', as if the problem was just greedy bankers at Goldman Sachs. The issue is we have a system that forces institutions to take bigger risks, and use bigger deceptions to maintain profitability. Goldman Sachs is hardly alone here. This whole investigation of Goldman Sachs seems to be about trying to pin everything on the 'ethical' failings of a handful of GS employees. It's also hard not to be cynical about the whole 'regulatory overhaul'. The people who we are supposed to be regulating have spent hundreds of millions lobbying, and they even get to influence the drafting of the legislation! We will get only what they are willing to live with.

I didn't expect much to change in a year. I don't really think the system is set up for any kind of sweeping change. It seems to me we're on the same path Reagan was on (and Carter was on, for that matter) of power consolidating in the financial sector, and immiseration of working people. Tea baggers are the least or our worries.

[abelenkpe]

98. You are right

it's not as simple as it sounds. Cleaning up wall street I mean. It will be along hard slog. We need to remain vigilant and make sure it is done and done right. I take heart in knowing our country has been through similar events and survived. There are many reasons to be disappointed in the changes proposed.
My concern is that we are at a crossroads where fear and anger could easily lead us astray. The tea party shenanigans has caused a rift in my family so maybe it's just too personal for me? I hope you are right that they are just a distraction.

[girl gone mad]

84. Public opinion shifted long ago.

The fact is that 100 to 1 calls against the bailouts didn't stop Obama from lobbying the Senate to get it done.

Public opinion may have shifted, but the administration continues to be a fierce advocate for a supply-side pro-corporatist Reaganomic/Rubinomic agenda.

[chill_wind]

82. Great points. Lloyd Blankfein gave $28,000 for example to the DSCC

in the the 07 cycle as I mentioned up thread. It's not just the money influence in presidential campaign politics, but congressional campaign money politics as well. DSCC, DCCC, lobbying..

An old DU thread on the eye-popping magnitude of the GS money spreading from the bailout days:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=4098280

But as you say, GS is only a part of the problem.

[abelenkpe]

72. Thank you. nt.

[whatchamacallit]

75. Now if I could only get him to *stop* asking for money... (n/t)

[ingac70]

79. kick.

[chill_wind]

85. Federal Campaign Contributions- another interesting link

with lots of useful search features. For people who like following money to politicians in both parties.
Lots of "Hall of Fame" type lists.

http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_political_donations/index.php?sort_by=dem

[ibegurpard]

88. It makes it even more disgusting

the corporate line he's been walking.

[MannyGoldstein]

89. But Summers and Rahm made many millions on Wall Street

In very little time, after doing huge favors for bankers under Clinton.

That's what it's all really about.

[rufus dog]

91. have only been paying 1/2 attention DU

Saw the Moore threads, the Frenchie Cat poll about how much did you donate, and looked quick then got caught up in business. Now I get it! (Sorry a bit slow)

So people on DU are saying the Pres is bought off.

O.K. I gave $1,200 a bit more give or take a t-shirt or two, previous rufus dog donations, officially $0. Rufus Dog return on investment 100%.

[Hekate]

94. Oh is that what this is about.I didn't keep track of my donations,but wrote frequent small checks

$25-$50 is a small check. Frequent is like monthly. I only send to specific candidates and causes, never to the national party office except during Howard Dean's term.

Plus I have no idea how much I spent at our local HQ buying Obama T-shirts and buttons and bumper stickers.

I don't think he's a "bought" politician; the OP is right to point out how collectively powerful we were and are. The people here who think he's crooked have serious issues :eyes:

Hekate

[Hekate]

93. Thumbs up

:thumbsup:

[MzShellG]

97. Exactly! nt

[DCBob]

100. +1

I was too late rec... but this is exactly correct!