said by petecarlson:
I don't know where this off-topic BS is coming from but is patently false. The vast majority of the 55 million raised so far in Q1 2008 has been from small donations. I don't have the time right now to add up Jan and Feb, but here is a sample from January:
"Baracks $28 million in online contributions came from more than 250,000 contributors. 90% were under $100. 40% were $25 or less, and 10,000 people gave $5 or $10 to the campaign"
If you count my $25 donation as a "special interest" donation then you might have a point but we all know that isn't what you were saying.
Your money, you're entitled to flush your $$$ down the toilet.
said by petecarlson:
Do you care to retract this statement or to back it up with fact? Show me that even half of this money came from big business and special interest groups as you claim and I will donate $25 to the candidate of your choice.
Nope, no retraction.
Obamas Refusal of Lobbyists Money Has its Limits
by Dan Morain
WASHINGTON - While pledging to turn down donations from lobbyists themselves, Sen. Barack Obama raised more than $1 million in the first three months of his presidential campaign from law firms and companies that have major lobbying operations in the nations capital.Portraying himself as a new-style politician determined to reform Washington, Obama makes his policy clear in fund-raising invitations, stating that he takes no donations from federal lobbyists. His aides announced last week he was returning $43,000 to lobbyists who donated to his campaign. But the Illinois Democrats policy of shunning money from lobbyists registered to do business on Capitol Hill does not extend to lawyers whose partners lobby there.
Nor does the ban apply to corporations that have major lobbying operations in Washington. And the prohibition does not extend to lobbyists who ply their trade in such state capitals as Springfield, Ill.; Tallahassee, Fla.; and Sacramento, though some deal with national clients and issues.
Clearly, the distinction is not that significant, said Stephen Weissman of the Campaign Finance Institute, a nonpartisan think tank that focuses on campaign issues.
He gets an asterisk that says he is trying to be different, Weissman said. But overall, the same wealthy interests are funding his campaign are funding other candidates, whether or not they are lobbyists.
A relative newcomer to national politics, Obama stunned the political world by raising $25.7 million in the first three months of the year, all but matching money raised by his main rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).
Securities and Investment
Hillary: $4.7 million
Obama: $4.5 millionRomney(the quintessential corporate candidate): $3.6 million
Hedge Fund and Private Equity
In case you're keeping score:
Gold:$980 (52% 1-year increase)
Silver: $20.30 (60% 1-year increase)
Euro-Dollar:0.6418 (All time low)
Oil: $109 (All time record)
US Debt: $9.4 Trillion
US Unfunded Liabilities: $57 Trillion
Obama and Hillary have an almost identical voting record in the Senate, which when you think about it, should mean she is getting about the same kind of big-money too right? I mean, after all, they are both basically two politicians espousing the same empty-suit rhetoric, right? Two currently elected politicians that are part of a congressional body that has a WORSE approval rating than George W. Bush because in the peoples mandate for change in the '06 election, what did we get? Hardworking Senators fighting to end the Iraq war, or a couple of political opportunists spending more time furthering their own political ambitions while our brave men and women are dying in Bush's war.
Two corporate puppets running against each other.
Hillary and Obama could have gotten along without big corporate money, but they took it in anyway. Wonder if this will open the clinton/obama supporters eyes?
2008 Candidates Show Affinity for Atomic Energy
By JOSH GERSTEIN
Staff Reporter of the Sun
April 20, 2007
Obama, brought to you by Exelon. Do you think that $160,000 by the largest nuclear power provider has anything to do with Obamas embrace of this discredited technology?
The scoop from Washington
Sweet column: Chicago's Exelon execs donations to Obama become issue for Clinton. Yucca Mountain.
(this is a longer version of the print column)
LAS VEGAS, NV.---Yucca Mountain is a battle cry in this state.
Congress has been wrestling for years over whether nuclear waste from other states, Illinois is one of them, with leftovers from power generating nuclear reactors should be stored at Yucca.
Nevadans, to put it mildly, are against designating Yucca as a permanent waste repository, putting the state at odds with the Chicago-based Exelon Corporation, the nations largest nuclear operator, supporting a Yucca dump.
Yucca is more than a hot button issue here. Yucca is radioactive.
Obama Doesn't Take Special Interest Money?
The media is all abuzz with this presidential primary race between the two Democratic contenders. They are so excited and I'm feeling like a zombie. I can't watch the television or go on the big websites because I am thoroughly disgusted, and so totally not interested. I don't care what kind of spin they put on these two politicians; I can't stand either of them. If it's not totally clear in every Liberal/Progressives head by now, it really should be. These two candidates represent just about everything, and everyone that we have been screaming about since Bush came into office.
Lets get down to the real nitty-gritty on this campaign. We all know that campaign finance is just about the biggest problem we have. We are constantly reminded of this every time we read or hear of the cost of running a successful bid for the White House.
It's fact that the candidates this cycle have outspent the previous candidates in the last Presidential election. We should realize that it is all about money. It's not about our money however; it is all about corporate money from the Military Industrial Corporate Complex. Many people get a knee-jerk reaction to that phrase.
Let me clear the air and present some facts that will underscore exactly what I am saying here; that there is absolutely no difference between the three corporate candidates that the MICC media has presented to us. Oh, by the way, Mussolini's definition of fascism; corporatism.
Lets see where these candidates get their money to convince you to vote for them;
Goldman Sachs $413,361 Morgan Stanley $362,700 Citigroup Inc $350,895 Lehman Brothers $241,870 JP Morgan Chase & Co $214,880 EMILY's List $213,266 National Amusements Inc $210,010 Kirkland & Ellis $179,676 Greenberg Traurig Llp $177,800 Skadden, Arps et al $167,796 Merrill Lynch $165,042 Cablevision Systems $145,313 Time Warner $144,977 Microsoft Corp $143,459 Bear Stearns $141,835 Latham & Watkins $138,598 Patton Boggs $137,200 Ernst & Young $126,865 PricewaterhouseCoopers $121,939
Goldman Sachs $421,763 Ubs Ag $296,670 Lehman Brothers $250,630 National Amusements Inc $245,843 JP Morgan Chase & Co $243,848 Sidley Austin LLP $226,491 Citigroup Inc $221,578 Exelon Corp $221,517 Skadden, Arps Et Al $196,420 Jones Day $181,996 Harvard University $172,324 Citadel Investment Group $171,798 Time Warner $155,383 Morgan Stanley $155,196 Google Inc $152,802 University of California $143,029 Jenner & Block $136,565 Kirkland & Ellis $134,738 Wilmerhale Llp $119,245 Credit Suisse Group $118,250
Is there something a wee bit fishy up there? Seems like the same people are financing the same top three, Is it me being suspicious or is it really true? By the way, these contributions are from employees of these companies that give and are bundled together by their employers. Are they being patriotic? Some of these corporations aren't even American corporations!
Lets look at the Military Industrial Complex:
Election Cycle 2008*
Total Contributions $9,307,088
$2,819,665 Contributions from Individuals
$6,487,423 Contributions from PACs
$4,861,181 Donations to Democrats
$4,439,327 Donations to Republicans
% to Dems 52%
% to GOP 48%
Why would the MIC give to the Democratic candidates unless they want to influence them?
Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards all pledged that the Yucca site would never be developed, reinforcing those pledges at Tuesdays debate.
Now, days before the Saturday caucus vote in Nevada, Clinton, at the debate and in a new paid radio spot running statewide, is highlighting the campaign donations Obama has taken from employees of Exelon.
Two senate candidates with almost identical voting records in the Senate who have horrible attendance records in Congress. Man, that is just such a hard decision to make. It's like picking out which currently elected senatorial turd stinks the least. Decisions ... decisions.--
It's easier to manipulate non-religious people, Ever hear of Communism?
With out religion your are more suceptable to manipulation. Look at china, they banned religion. It's much easier to manipulate people who don't have any religious convictions.