Where the fuck is all this money coming from, anyway?

[Stinky The Clown]

Clinton ..... $25 million plus

Romney ..... almost $25 million

Obama ...... speculated to be at least in excess of $20 million

Many others in the tens of millions.

The record for this time period, just a scant three years ago, was under $10 million.

The economy is actually pretty sucky.

So where the fuck is all this money coming from?

When it is all said and done and the new president plunks his/her cracked ass on the oval office chair, will we have seen in excess of $1 billion spent?

That, dear friends, is simply fucking obscene.

[LisaM]

1. Off the backs of the vanishing middle class, from our schools,

from our roads, from our infrastructure. Look around you. How many potholes do you drive over every day? How is the transit in your city? How are your state parks?

[havocmom]

12. Potholes, schools, and state parks donate to candidates?

Huh?

No, money for those things disappear AFTER elections (if the GOP wins).

[LisaM]

20. The lobbies for privatization....

All the Republicans in Washington are funded by developers' lobbies.

[shance]

17. I'm not sure about that. I'd say somehow corporations are buying in.

Why else would these candidates talk out of one side of their mouths and then pass legislation that protects and emboldens the corporations/banking institutions.

[Greyhound]

55. It's called bundling and it's the (pardon the expression) elephant in the living room.

Donations are limited to $2300 so what they do is to "encourage" their employees to make the donations and deliver them in a block. The message is clear and the rules are followed.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. I believe SOME of the money is coming from republicans wanting

to chose our candidate before we actually have the chance.

[AnneD]

7. As of late....

I have been feeling that Hillary is being crammed down my throat-and we haven't cast one ballot yet.

[Carolina]

31. exactly

I feel your dismay. Hopefully, we (the people, the voters) will show that money ain't everything.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

3. agreed

beyond obscene. People don't run for office any more, they buy their way in. :mad:

[Freddie Stubbs]

4. Apperently a lot of it is coming from small donors

80% of Clinton's contributions were $100 or less:

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/04/the_official_cl.html

[SteppingRazor]

8. Not impossible, but pretty tough to do.

If Clinton made $26 million, 80% of it from contributions of $100 or less, that means 208,000 people contributed $100 — and actually that number must be far greater, since many of those contributions would have been less than $100.

(80 percent of $26 million = 20,800,000, divided by 100 = 208,000)

Not impossible, but ... getting probably about half a million people to donate to a campaign is pretty damn impressive

[SOS]

32. Clinton had 50,000 donors, not half a million

For access the Senator, donors had to put up $4,600 each.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070401campaign-money,0,5935176.story

[SteppingRazor]

58. Thanks for the link. How do those numbers jibe with the "80 percent of donors gave $100 or less"?

n/t

[SOS]

62. It does work out...

50,000 x 80% = 40,000 at $100 or less would be a maximum of $4 million.
Leaving 10,000 donors to give $22 million.

$22 million divided by 10,000 donors = $2,200 each.

[SteppingRazor]

64. Thanks!

Thank God there's DUers with a better head for numbers than me. :dunce:

[Jai4WKC08]

69. I'm not buying it

No offense, SOS. Your numbers are correct as best as I can tell, and it does work out... but only just barely.

It's just not reasonable to assume that all of the 40,000 who donated "$100 or less" donated exactly $100, and that the remaining donors averaged only $100 less than the maximum. If you let the variables slip too far from those extreme values, the equation no longer works out.

Most people just don't give all or nothing, even for Hillary Clinton.

[SOS]

80. I see your point

Another factor to consider is that the fat cats had to contribute a minimum of $2,300 to meet Hillary.
Those people can actually donate $4,600 - $2,300 for the primaries and another $2,300 for the general.

It seems likely that the Wall Street donors gave the full $4,600, thus offsetting some of the $25 and $50 donations.

[Jai4WKC08]

84. Maybe I'm mistaken

But I thought her $26M was for primaries only. If it counts the full $4600 per person, then yeah, it could offset some of the smaller contributions.

But still... kind of hard there aren't a lot of people giving $200, or $500, or whatever -- somewhere between $100 and $2300/4600 -- the figures don't account for them at all. Not everybody who contributes more than $100 are the BIG money people who can max out, and would if only for the opportunity to meet with her. I'm thinking of middle to upper class women (and probably a few men) who respond to mailings from places like Emily's List (and I use that as an example only, because I got a mailer from them).

I think I will wait a little while for it all to shake out. I'm just not trusting the figures released to the media, not from any of 'em. I'll wait 'til the FEC documents are available on opensecrets.org.

[ProudDad]

25. The 80% who paid in $100 or less

are NOT the voices that Hillary will hear.

And these are "official" donations anyway. It's the big money from the corporations that she will listen to if she's elected.

Just as it'll be the BIG money from the corporations that whoever wins in '08 will listen to...no matter who that is.

[Freddie Stubbs]

39. Corporations are prohibited by law from contributing to federal campaigns

[ProudDad]

43. God, you are kidding, right?

Corporate executives and the poor bastards working for them can contribute to the MAX (which is a hell of a lot more than $100).

I'm sure Hillary has her own versions of the "Pioneers", bundlers for bush.

Those are the voices that will be heard by Hill...

[Freddie Stubbs]

54. Those working for corporations can contribute, but the corporations themselves are prohibited

The same applies to labor unions.

[Greyhound]

56. But they are not prohibited from "donating" to the parties. n/t

:kick:

[Jacobin]

60. May I tell you how that's done?

It's happened to me.

You are approached by your boss.

"Hey, howya doin. Ya know, we really like so and so and he could do us a lot of good in Washington. Of course the company can't give him money directly, but the boss really really wants to help this guy out. wink wink. What we're doing is, the top 50 execs here are gonna give this guy $2,500.00 each, okay? And your next quarterly bonus? We'll catch you up then. Oh, you don't have it right now? No problem, we'll give you an advance on your bonus so you can write the check now."

See how easy that is?

(Illegal? Sure! Anyone doing anything about it? Of course not!!!)

[Freddie Stubbs]

63. A firm here in FL just got caught doing that

http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2007/03/05/daily34.html

[Jacobin]

65. every now and then one or two get caught

thousands of others continue to do so

[Greyhound]

87. Thank you! Please expand this and post it. Far too many people,

even here in a community of political junkies, don't realize how the system has been stolen from us. Maybe if more were aware, it would make some difference.

As a former corporate whore, I was subjected to this every other year and later when I was an overseer, was tasked with whipping up the "bundles" from the proles. I actually had a quota to meet, and even worse, the money went exclusively to Republiks.

[SteppingRazor]

5. Here's where you're wrong: "The economy is actually pretty sucky."

That phrase is only true for everyone from poverty through the middle class and on up through the lower-upper class.

If you were wealthy going into the Bush years, chances are, you've made absolutely silly amounts of cash over the last few years. The old complaint of the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer has been magnified in the 21st Century. For the wealthy few, these have been very good years.

[MethuenProgressive]

6. How much should Gore have spent in 2000 for 534 votes?

That what he lost Florida by, isn't it?

[John Q. Citizen]

9. Gore won Florida. n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. By how many votes?

If he had won it by a few thousand more, would the result have been different?

[John Q. Citizen]

19. It's hard to say, exactly. there were all the provisionals, the under votes, the

flipped votes the scrubed as felons votes, the butterfly ballot votes. Plus there was the consortium recount of so called official ballots that showed he won, by various margins depending on the criteria used.

I think it was CBS that was all set to call it for Gore when a "computer glitch" caused Gore's totals to go backwards by 10,000 votes.

I think if Gore had recieved a few thousand official votes more, then bushco would have figured a way to nullify them or give bush a few thousand more votes too.

The fix was in, obviously.

[tom_paine]

34. If he had won it by thousands more, they would have stolen thousands more

The Loyal Bushies WERE NOT going to lose, no matter what and who Filthy Little Nobodies (that the bottom 90% of America).

If you go back and look closely at all the evidence uncovered (the Dems will NEVER open that can o' worms, although the evidence is readily laying about and available, like Gonzogate), you will find one instance of the Loyal Bushies fixing and refeeding 10,000 Bush votes back into (was it Leon County? I can't remember but the story is still out there) the optiscanner.

No, it really didn't matter how much Gore really won by, so long as it was within reach of the Loyal Bushies and their thumb-on-the-scale.

[solara]

10. Agreed. I wonder where it comes from too..

seems to me the only people who would have access to that kind of money are CEOs of the big corporations like oil, insurance tobacco and drugs...or drug lords... or maybe a few wealthy entrepeneurs or lobbyists..and I gotta say that I am not comfortable with the idea that our nominee is going to have to give pay back for this kind of money after he/she is elected. Maybe I am just naive as hell.

But it disturbs me and I hate that there is just no difference at all between the parties when it comes to the money standard of campaigning. Unfortunately, if you don't play the money game better than the other side, you don't get heard... which, IMO, is one of the reasons our electorate system is broken to begin with. Yes. it is an obscenity.


:kick: & rec

INVESTIGATE IMPEACH INDICT INCARCERATE :patriot:

[Freddie Stubbs]

21. 80 % of Clinton's contributions were $100 or less

I guess times are rough even for the CEO's.

[Stinky The Clown]

24. I heard that too, but the math seems not to work very well .......

She raised 26 mil.

That means the top 20% (those who gave over $100) gave a total of 5.2 mil (20% of 26 mil).

Ergo, the bottom 80% ($100 or less) gave a total of $20.8 mil.

At a hundred bucks a pop, that's 208,000 donors.

I think I read where she claimed some 50,000 donors.

Anyway .... the numbers are actually possible ..... but man oh man, it sure seems a stretch to me.

DISCLAIMER: I AM CANDIDATE NEUTRAL

On edit .... I just now noticed, upthread, that someone already did this very same math. Sorry about that!

[solara]

30. I am candidate neutral too..since the primaries are still a year away

but I gotta say, the money thing makes me very wary and I am inclined to support the candidates who do NOT have 20 million or so at their disposal. I guess I feel that way because it seems more normal somehow to have raised only 6 or 10 million.. and yeah the math seems a little off to me too..

But geez..we are still talking millions here.. I can't help but wonder what kind of good works could be done with that kind of money.

:crazy:


INVESTIGATE IMPEACH INDICT INCARCERATE :patriot:

[NCarolinawoman]

66. I feel as you do.

Here's to the "second tier". :toast:

They are less beholden.

[SOS]

81. Not rough for the CEOs at all

The rich 20% donated 88% of the money.

[leftofthedial]

11. it came out of our wallets, schools, roads, hospitals, infrastructure . . .

and was transferred into the wallets of capitalist oligarchs and plutocrats

who now want to ensure that they continue to own the political process in Murka.

[stellanoir]

13. stinky

I love you for your absolute mastery of bluntness,

I feel the same. It is truly obscene.

Our democracy has been stolen by short sighted and stupidly selfish corporate interests at the enormous expense of each and every one of the rest of us.

When it costs so much more to get elected than an elected official is paid, corruption is more than likely inevitable.

Throw in the insecure election technology into the mix and voila. . .no more representative leadership coupled with the oh so fun and rewarding situation of taxation without representation. Time for another tea party I reckon.

Sparkly is a lucky and undoubtedly wonderful lady.

Has she regained scanner privileges yet?

More scandalous clown picts please.

K & R'd

[Nederland]

15. The economy only sucks

...if you are in the bottom 20%. The rest of America is doing rather well and contributing accordingly.

[sandnsea]

16. 1/3 of workers earn less than $11 hr

So think again. The problem is the top 10% has profited so excessively in the last few years, the bottom 90% don't even matter anymore.

[Nederland]

18. Ok

I'm guessing that many of those 1/3 are kids or people with well paid spouses. So maybe it's only 70% of America that's doing well--it's still a sizable majority.

[sandnsea]

23. $46,326, median household income

Is that "doing well" to you???

You've been around long enough to have heard the statistics before so I don't know why you muddle the numbers. Household income for the top 10% is $166,000 and many of them tell me they "struggle".

Very few people are "doing well" in this economy. Go to a Target or Walmart and look at the shoppers. Most of them look as if they haven't bought anything new since Bush took office, and that was just not the case in the 90's.

[Nederland]

35. Yes, it is

My personal opinion is that people in this country don't understand that money can't buy you happiness. They've been told by advertizers that it can, and they bought the lie hook line and sinker. The bottom line is that people making 46k a year can afford a standard of living that is better than 99% of the people who lived 100 years ago. So what are you going to tell me, that 99% of the population 100 years ago were unhappy? Get real. It has to do with perceptions of what we "need" versus what we actually do "need". Americans could be happy with far far less than they have, they just don't realize it.

[BootinUp]

37. 30 years

in one direction and you haven't had enough yet? Be interested in your opinion in another 10 or so.

[sandnsea]

38. Uh no

We're very quickly moving back to a time when conditions were much like they were 100 years ago. The only reason you don't see it is because of govt programs. It has nothing to do with happiness either. It has to do with being able to pay the bills. Housing, utilities, food, health care, education, insurance, retirement. You're not going to get very far on 46,000. You certainly aren't going to have any excess to be sending to political campaigns. That's the bottom 50%, not 20%. The economy is not going swimmingly for at least half the country, I'd say more like 70%.

In addition, why should 90% of the population settle for crumbs in in order for the 10% to live lives of leisure. That's flat stupid.

[Nederland]

67. The ability to pay your bills

...is directly related to what choices you make about your lifestyle. The size of your mortgage, they type of car you drive, the type of clothes you buy, how often you go out to eat, etc. These are choices that are decided by what we want much more than what we need. I've seen plenty of people making 46k a year live perfectly happy comfortable lives and pay all their bills--they are just a little more modest than most people are. They live in a 1500 sq ft townhouse, not a 2500 sq ft house. They drive a Civic, not a Camry. These differences add up quickly and the simple fact of the matter is that most Americans live way beyond their means.

Show me a person who makes 46k a year and can't pay their bills and 95% of the time I'll show you a person who has made bad financial choices. The exceptions primarily involve people that have gotten gravely ill and have no health insurance--a problem that universal health care would help alleviate no doubt.

[sandnsea]

68. health, retirement, education

Just those little incidentals. :eyes:

20% of a $40,000 hospital bill is $8,000. That would sink a lot of those people, even if they did have health insurance. They don't save for retirement and education, they can't afford it. Are you raising a family on $46,000 a year? Or $16,000 a year?

[Nederland]

70. Response

I already conceded that we have a problem with health care in this country and I suspect that we both agree that universal health care is the solution.

Regarding the other two, retirement and education, I would again say it's a matter of choices. If you decide that you want to pay for your children's college education, you need to be able to put away about $800 a month per child, every month from the time they are born till they go to college. If you can't afford that, don't have kids or tell your kids they'll have to come up with some of the money themselves. Retirement is similar, though not optional. Decide when you want to retire and how much money you think you need and form a budget.

Can it be done on 46k a year? Absolutely. A single head of household person making 46k a year is going to pay around 7k a year in taxes, leaving 39k a year to spend. That's $3250 a month. Can you live on that? Yes, millions of happy people do every year.

[sandnsea]

71. Response

Half the country should do nothing but work for the 10% leisure class?

Pssht.

Good bye.

[bread_and_roses]

83. Right on, sandnsea! THAT's the point

not whether or not people "could" or "should" be able to live on $46,000.

[IsItJustMe]

82. Honestly, I think you're living in a buble.

[Nederland]

86. Correct

A bubble that protects me from advertisers that tell you to BUY BUY BUY!!!

[ProudDad]

75. Not in most of California

You couldn't afford to buy a house let alone have a "small mortgage".

You could barely afford rent, food and transportation expenses.

$46,000 after taxes = about 2600 per month...

Average Rent: 2 bedroom house = $1800 in the war zone, much more in the burbs.
Gas: $3.40/gallon - or Bart: about $300 per month to commute

Food: you do the math with the $500 left.

Minimum House Cost (again, in the war zone): $450,000


The basic problem for the majority is not the money though. The basic problem is a misery index that includes people working paycheck to paycheck because they're under the median, people whose "health care" is just one catastrophic illness from nonexistence, people whose job is always on the trading block in this cancerous capitalist paradise...


You are correct about money not buying happiness. The problem is that we live in a right-wing capitalist theocracy that bombards us daily with messages telling us that the consumerist ideal is the only success.

Not much happiness to be found here.

Public Financing of elections, Single-payer universal health care, a MASSIVE housing and public works program a'la WPA, and no personhood for corporations -- would be a good start toward the most happiness for the most people.

I AM a happy person. Pretty poor in income now that I can't work in the computer business any more, but happy.

[hedgehog]

73. Make that the top 1%.

The difference between the person at the 90 percentile and t\he person at 99 is a lot greater than th\e person at 90 and the person at 20!

[ProudDad]

26. BOTTOM 20?????

I WAS occasionally in the upper 20 and life was pretty fucked up as my jobs kept being sent overseas to fatten some plutocrat's stock portfolio. LIke a FUCKING YO-YO. What the hell kind of economy is that!!!!!

Now I'm in the bottom 20 (Social Security and a tiny bit of savings).

What color is the sky in YOUR "america"????

The party is among the top 1% -- the rest are 2 paychecks away from the f*cking street!!!

[Greyhound]

57. Yep and that's why we only hear about this in terms of large groups.

There was a book recently published that breaks it down nicely. (I can't remember anything about it except the author is British and it was published about a month ago)

I'm working from memory so the figures are not exact, but it goes something like this; over the last 30 years the bottom half has seen their income drop about 15%, the next 30% has been stagnant, the next 15% has seen their income rise about 10%, the next 4.9% has seen their income double, and the top .1% has gone up almost 1000%.

So we are, in fact, returning to the "good old days", otherwise known as the gilded age.

[Adelante]

22. Well, I want them to have to tell us

I want to know who and where and how much. Instead of us hearing about the revolting excess in terms of who is the greatest of the great in getting, tell us who is paying. Tell us right away. Get your staff to do a sort in your financial program and then post the information to your websites. Include the bundlers. At the end of every day, update. I want transparency now, not when you're goddamned good and ready.

[anitar1]

27. Read David Sirota columns and find out more about that.n/t

[Tom Joad]

28. I think dozens of americans...

I expect many of the big donors gave to several candidates, from both Parties.

[many a good man]

29. Money is imaginary

The economy is imaginary, too.



It's only money.

[Nederland]

36. Exactly (nt)

[sandnsea]

72. Let me guess

You aren't the parent of that little child who needs $1,000 of medication a month to stay alive and you can't even afford to feed her an adequate diet of fruits and vegetables every day.

[Township75]

33. How come these people have money for a primary but not a charity?

Seriously, the amount of money in the primary is obscene like you said...why not put this stuff to good use in charity instead? Or a portion of it. $25 million !?!?!? If you need that much money to win, you probably shouldn't!

[Adelante]

40. Between the two parties a projected TWO BILLION DOLLARS

To be spent on this song and dance.

Excellent point here:

"If you need that much money to win, you probably shouldn't!"

[mnhtnbb]

42. Because money buys access to power.

[mnhtnbb]

41. The money is all coming from people who are SICK & TIRED of Bushie boy!

[ProudDad]

45. I doubt it

the majority of the money spent in this next election will be coming from the corporate masters and will go to ALL "viable" candidates of both right wings of the business party...

[SaveElmer]

44. Really isn't...in fact it is a very good sign

Hillary for example raise 26 Mil from 50,000 donors...

That is an average of $520 per donor...

Obama apparently came in about 23 mil with 83,000 donors...an even smaller average...

What this shows is that...in record numbers...people sick of the current regime are putting their money where their mouths are...

[Colobo]

47. We want change

and we are actually willing to pay for it. :)

[ProudDad]

78. It would only cost $6

http://www.just6dollars.org/

[ProudDad]

48. Check your math

Even if the 40,000 who paid $100 or less paid the full $100 that's $4 million. The other $22 million came in BIG bundles from the "owner" class - an average of $2200 each.

Can you afford to send a candidate $2200? I sure as hell can't. That's nearly a month's rent.

Most of the owner class are probably giving to both sides to hedge their bets.


PS: I like your sig line...that pretty much says it... See, we agree about something :hi:

[SaveElmer]

49. Didn't see the split between large and small donors...

However...$1100, while alot to you and me is still small enough to be encouraging, still small enough to believe it is coming from people looking for a Democratic win, not a favor...

Fact is Democrats are raising money in record amounts which I find very heartening...

[ProudDad]

50. Under the circumstances

I'm happier that the Dems are also raising obscene amounts of money -- don't need no more repukes.

But, I'd rather see the Dems use their wins in '08 to change the system - public financing of elections and force the media to give us our airwaves for REAL debates. None of this is likely but I'd like to see it.

[SaveElmer]

51. Hillary did come out for public financing...

The last couple of days...

[ProudDad]

77. Thanks for the tip

Here it is: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/04/02/america/NA-POL-US-White-House-Clinton.php

Good for her! I hope she can and WILL follow up if she gets elected...

[dogman]

46. w's tax cuts.

People with money will pay any price to get more.

[unkachuck]

52. once again....

....the safe-list of safe-leftist primary candidates that we get to select from has been determined by corporations and/or money....

....why do we even bother?....you know the corporate-safe candidate will be selected....you know we will be instructed to hold our noses and vote because the corporate alternative will be 'too scary'....we know we're being played and we like it that way....

....I get the feeling I could fall asleep today and wake up in January 2009 and not miss a thing....

[mmonk]

53. I wouldn't mind seeing a detailed donor list,

[Jacobin]

59. Well, corporations do own the government. And they have to PAY for it

[PhilipShore]

61. The military-Industrial-Complex

[ProudDad]

79. It's a HELL of a lot more than $450B

http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,387 billion
MILITARY: 51% and $1,228 billion
NON-MILITARY: 49% and $1,159 billion

[pnwmom]

74. Obama refuses donations from lobbyists and PAC's.

He's gotten a lot of smaller donations, as well as some bigger ones.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-070404obama-money,1,1955904.story?coll=chi-newsbreaking-hed

SNIP

"Obama's campaign said that at least $23.5 million of its first-quarter collection would be available for the primary campaign, an important distinction because candidates are able to raise money now for both the primary and general elections.

"Clinton officials have refused to say how much of the $26 million can be used for her primary campaign, a figure that should be readily available. The Edwards' campaign, meanwhile, has said less than $1 million of his tally is designated for the general election.

"People involved in Democratic fundraising have noted that many of Clinton's events required a contribution of $4,600 for access to the senator and other VIPs. That is the maximum amount allowed for an individual to donate by law, with half going for the primary and half for the general.

"Obama, on the other hand, has mostly sought donations of up to $2,300, which means the bulk of his take this quarter will be available for the primary campaign. Obama also made his fundraising task more difficult by refusing to accept money from lobbyists and political action committees, unlike Clinton."

SNIP

[retread]

76. Twenty-five dollars of Obama's total came from the retread household. n/t

[Arugula Latte]

85. Ours too ... So that makes $50 :-)

But, hey, it says something that we donated A YEAR AND A HALF before the frickin' election, eh? :hi:

I'm sure we'll be throwing a little more lettuce Obama's way, and maybe Edwards' way too.