HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The shocking truth: Obama...

Sun May 12, 2013, 08:04 AM

The shocking truth: Obama's top 2012 campaign contributor

Barack Obama's top 2012 presidential campaign contributor:

1. University of California - $1,212,245

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00009638&cycle=2012



Mitt Romney's top 2012 presidential campaign contributor:

1. Goldman Sachs - $1,033,204

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286&cycle=2012

.................

Who'd a thunk it?

32 replies, 3780 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 32 replies Author Time Post
Reply The shocking truth: Obama's top 2012 campaign contributor (Original post)
ucrdem May 2013 OP
LuvNewcastle May 2013 #1
ucrdem May 2013 #3
RKP5637 May 2013 #6
PeaceNikki May 2013 #7
RKP5637 May 2013 #10
freshwest May 2013 #32
RKP5637 May 2013 #8
ucrdem May 2013 #11
RKP5637 May 2013 #12
PeaceNikki May 2013 #14
ucrdem May 2013 #15
PeaceNikki May 2013 #16
Liberal_Stalwart71 May 2013 #26
RKP5637 May 2013 #27
LuvNewcastle May 2013 #9
ucrdem May 2013 #13
LuvNewcastle May 2013 #17
burnodo May 2013 #19
ucrdem May 2013 #21
rhett o rick May 2013 #25
RVN VET May 2013 #24
freshwest May 2013 #31
Squinch May 2013 #2
PeaceNikki May 2013 #4
Squinch May 2013 #5
John2 May 2013 #23
Squinch May 2013 #28
tridim May 2013 #18
high density May 2013 #20
ucrdem May 2013 #22
toddaa May 2013 #29
Rex May 2013 #30

Response to ucrdem (Original post)

Sun May 12, 2013, 08:27 AM

1. Obama's top contributors in 2008

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638

University of California $1,648,685
Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
Harvard University $878,164
Microsoft Corp $852,167
Google Inc $814,540
JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
Citigroup Inc $736,771
Time Warner $624,618
Sidley Austin LLP $600,298
Stanford University $595,716
National Amusements Inc $563,798
WilmerHale LLP $550,668
Columbia University $547,852
Skadden, Arps et al $543,539
UBS AG $532,674
IBM Corp $532,372
General Electric $529,855
US Government $513,308
Morgan Stanley $512,232
Latham & Watkins $503,295

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LuvNewcastle (Reply #1)

Sun May 12, 2013, 08:35 AM

3. Looks like GS didn't get what they wanted.

Obama's top 2012 contributors:

1. University of California $1,212,245
2. Microsoft Corp $814,645
3. Google Inc $801,770
4. US Government $728,647
5. Harvard University $668,368
6. Kaiser Permanente $588,386
7. Stanford University $512,356
8. Deloitte LLP $456,975
9. Columbia University $455,309
10. Time Warner $442,271

11. US Dept of State $417,629
12. DLA Piper $401,890
13. Sidley Austin LLP $400,883
14. Walt Disney Co $369,598
15. IBM Corp $369,491
16. University of Chicago $357,185
17. University of Michigan $339,806
18. Comcast Corp $337,628
19. US Dept of Justice $334,659
20. US Dept of Health & Human Services $309,956

No more GS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #3)

Sun May 12, 2013, 08:42 AM

6. Dept's of gov. contribute to campaigns?

4. US Government $728,647
11. US Dept of State $417,629
19. US Dept of Justice $334,659
20. US Dept of Health & Human Services $309,956

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #6)

Sun May 12, 2013, 08:44 AM

7. Employees of those agencies.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #7)

Sun May 12, 2013, 08:48 AM

10. Thanks! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #7)

Sun May 19, 2013, 11:42 PM

32. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #6)

Sun May 12, 2013, 08:44 AM

8. I think post #4 answers my question ... n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #8)

Sun May 12, 2013, 08:48 AM

11. Here's a real surprise:

Ron Paul's top 5 contributors:

1. US Army $113,933
2. US Navy $91,100
3. US Air Force $88,102
4. Google Inc $42,478
5. US Dept of Defense $40,500

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contriball.php

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #11)

Sun May 12, 2013, 08:50 AM

12. Wow!!! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #11)

Sun May 12, 2013, 08:52 AM

14. meh, those totals are piddly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #14)

Sun May 12, 2013, 08:59 AM

15. ~$4 mil is respectable

but the surprise is how much came from the armed services, when Paul is the guy who supposedly wants to reign in the armed services.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #15)

Sun May 12, 2013, 09:01 AM

16. Ron Paul supporters are not known for their common sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #6)

Sun May 12, 2013, 11:03 AM

26. I'm a federal employee and I contribute. It's perfectly legal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #26)

Sun May 12, 2013, 11:04 AM

27. Thanks! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #3)

Sun May 12, 2013, 08:46 AM

9. Didn't get what they wanted?

Did any banksters go to jail? Did they bring back Glass-Steagall? Did they end derivatives trading? Looks to me like they got a good return on their investment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LuvNewcastle (Reply #9)

Sun May 12, 2013, 08:52 AM

13. Looks like they threw a $million on Romney

and got nothing. That doesn't sound like a satisfied customer to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #13)

Sun May 12, 2013, 09:05 AM

17. Romney had a chance, that's why the gave to him.

McCain didn't have a chance in 2008, so they gave to Obama. Republicans are better for the banksters because they deregulate everything they can and cut taxes, but a Democrat can always be bought if a Republican isn't available. It's sort of like a date on Saturday night. GOPers are the wild date who will do anything and Democrats are the date who makes you wear a condom. You might prefer the Republican, but a Democrat will always do the job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #13)

Sun May 12, 2013, 09:11 AM

19. You mean people who work for Goldman Sachs?

 

I wonder who Timmy Geithner contributed to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to burnodo (Reply #19)

Sun May 12, 2013, 09:22 AM

21. Yes, but also the people who own or run it

and their families, per Open Secrets. I don't think the horse-switch was a random event, if that's what you're suggesting. That's a big change from 2008 to 2012, and GS wasn't the only financial firm to pull out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #21)

Sun May 12, 2013, 10:34 AM

25. Maybe in 2008 they were "not supporting" Palin. Just sayin. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #3)

Sun May 12, 2013, 09:38 AM

24. I thought Bill Maher put up a million?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #3)

Sun May 12, 2013, 10:20 PM

31. Obama and the Democratic Party is pushing education to keep parity with the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Original post)

Sun May 12, 2013, 08:35 AM

2. I love this, and this might be a stupid question, but:

How is the U of CA contributing to a political campaign? Isn't it a public university and as such wouldn't that be construed as taxpayer money? Isn't it like, say, the city of Peoria contributing to a presidential campaign?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #2)

Sun May 12, 2013, 08:37 AM

4. That's explained in the link:

The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their 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.


When you donate, you are required to disclose your employer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #4)

Sun May 12, 2013, 08:38 AM

5. Oh. Thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #2)

Sun May 12, 2013, 09:35 AM

23. Public Universities

 

are usually where people engage in Liberal discussion. Nothing is off limits and very little is censored. People can express their views more openly, without being ostracized. Public Universities also have a Policy of diversity. Conservatives are very much against that type of environment. Public Universities have been very much involved in social movements within this country. I learned a lot of my ideas in a Public University and how I thought about things in this country and around the World. They are also places where you do a lot of educational research instead of taking the propaganda some want to put out. Especially that research report put out by the Heritage Foundation on the superiority of Whites versus Hispanics. Anybody with a good education would know he probably manipulated it. What he put out was just racist period. Skin color does not make someone superior period. It has nothing to do with intelligence at all. There are many factors that determine intelligence. If you go by his premise, Chinese are superior to whites because they statistically out perform them in school. But we all know it is the efforts they put into learning and has nothing to do with their skin color. We also know some individuals out perform others of all races. We also know it has something to do with the environment, such as poverty versus wealth and opportunity. A person living in poverty will have less opportunity than a person living in wealth. They need to consider why people think the Republican Party is racist. Could it be there are some well educated and smart people on the other side, like students from Public Universities? Some of the sit ins during the Civil Rights Era in North carolina was initiated and organized on college campuses. And why do you think the right keep calling Liberal Whites Elitists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John2 (Reply #23)

Sun May 12, 2013, 12:14 PM

28. Yes, I do understand all that. But I just was wondering how a publicly funded university

could contribute to a political campaign.

As PeaceNikki pointed out, they can't. It is PAC's and organizations of people who are associated with the university, not the university itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Original post)

Sun May 12, 2013, 09:10 AM

18. Obama's top donor was small donations by actual people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Original post)

Sun May 12, 2013, 09:16 AM

20. Given your headline, I don't think you read that red text that is on the pages you linked. NM

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to high density (Reply #20)

Sun May 12, 2013, 09:25 AM

22. That's how Open Secrets lists contributors.

But the UC regents did not cut a million dollar check to Obama, true, so you're right about that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Original post)

Sun May 12, 2013, 12:27 PM

29. First rule in investing: Diversify your portfolio

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Original post)

Sun May 12, 2013, 12:31 PM

30. GS is pond scum.

They only want to destroy the country for profit! Is THAT too much to ask for!?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread