Some FACTS about Fundraising (Edwards v Obama)

[Milo_Bloom]

I placed this a sub-thread in another post, but was asked to make this its own post. For the purpose of the sub-thread it was a comparrison between fundraising between Obama and Edwards; however, you can take it and apply it all candidates. ALL NUMBERS ARE DIRECTLY FROM OPENSECRETS.ORG


People look at fundraising numbers and declare that because X candidate took more money from Y industry than another, X candidate must be more beholden to the industry than the other candidate. However, you always have to look at the whole picture.


It is often said right here on DU that Edwards is a better candidate because he has taken less from Health Care or Lobbyists or whatever than Obama, but no one ever considers the fact that Obama has, in general, outraised Edwards by over 250%.

The fact is John Edwards has taken money from EXACTLY the same sources as the other candidates. When you at it in proportion, it paints the real picturre. John Edwards is as in bed with these people as Obama.


Obama has raised 80 million. Edwards only 30 million.

Let's look at some industries.


Health Care

Barack Obama (D) 1.6% of his total
$1,330,743

John Edwards (D) 1.4 % of his total
$419,326


Insurance Industry

Barack Obama (D)
$390,513 0.4% of his total


John Edwards (D)
$129,600 0.4% of his total


Lobbyists

Barack Obama (D)
$76,859 0.09% of his total


John Edwards (D)
$18,900 0.06% of his total


Banks

Barack Obama (D)
$865,856 1% of his total


John Edwards (D)
$153,650 .5% of his total.


Pharma

Barack Obama (D) 0.3% of his TOTAL
$261,784


John Edwards (D) 0.05% of his total
$15,000

[Adelante]

1. Your posts are always informative and spin-free

Appreciated.

[Milo_Bloom]

2. Thank you !

I try... often fail... but I do try :)

[cali]

3. Excellent post. I've been saying repeatedly that it's about

percentages not raw numbers. Furthermore, JE has taken in over $8 million from one special interest group- lawyers- and that accounts for a whopping 30% of his campaign funds.

It's a big fat myth that Obama is any more indebted to any group than JE. The fact is, he's actually less indebted.

Not that the Edwards supporters will ever cop to the truth.

[redqueen]

9. "the Edwards supporters"! ROFLLEMAYO!

Yes, because ALL of Edwards' supporters are awful, vile, childish beasts!

While ALL of Obama's and Hillary's are wonderful glowing precious angels sent straight down from heaven as a gift from the baby Jesus himself!

:rofl:

[cali]

16. er, no

I didn't say all Edwards supporters, but it's a persistent and widespread meme among Edwards supporters that he's "pure" and that Obama is a corporate "tool" It's been spread over and over and over this board, day in and day out.

Funny isn't it that so many Edwards supporters never learned about percentages?

:rofl:

Oh, and as I've said repeatedly; there are obnoxious supporters of all the candidates.

You sure do like to put words in other peoples' mouths. I find that pretty funny too.

[redqueen]

17. Wasn't me using that broad brush though, was it?

"Not that the Edwards supporters will ever cop to the truth."

I don't need to twist those words!

Would it have been so hard to type "some of" before "the"? Or put "nutball" after "the"? No, it wouldn't.


"You sure do like to put words in other peoples' mouths. I find that pretty funny too."

I notice you're lying about what I say... do you do that a lot? The lying? :rofl:

[cali]

29. No. I don't lie on this board.

Haven't noticed you do that either. But you did put words in my mouth by insinuating that I said that all Obama supporters were purer than driven snow, and buess what, pumpkin?

that is a lie.

:rofl:

[redqueen]

33. Ah no... I thought that was simply a logical inference from your assertion.

Not a lie, simply a misunderstanding, jack-o-lantern. :)

[JuniperLea]

54. Especially when you hear it "repeatedly"...

That makes it more believable, more truthful, don't you think?

[redqueen]

64. Yup! (nt)

[LSK]

37. what does his taking money from lawyers mean?

Which lawyers, Corporate lawyers or trial lawyers?

[lisainmilo]

38. They are private donations, not lobby monies that influence law!

When you make a donation the ask for your job title, I am a nurse and mine fall into healthcare or other. Paid lobbyist in the healthcare business would affect law. Paid lobbyist in the attorneys business would affect law. John Edwards has accepted NO LOBBYING MONIES. I have and others have continously posted this, but it gets ignored.

Facts are facts!


Individual contributions
$30,121,494
99%

PAC contributions
$20
0%

Candidate self-financing
$0
0%

Federal Funds
$0
0%

Other
$207,638
1%

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?ID=N00002283&Cycle=2008

[Milo_Bloom]

39. It's not true.

John Edwards has accepted 18,000+ in Lobbying Monies.

According to someone down thread, he only hasn't accepted Lobbying Monies SINCE AUGUST.

[Cronus Protagonist]

4. Did you find out info about church groups, media and Republicans?

I suspect the picture might be different.

[Milo_Bloom]

11. The original post that I responded to wasn't about that.

And I do not see any such breakdown on Opensecrets.org

The closest I could give you is Movies/Music/TV (which would include media)

Barack Obama (D) 2.7% of total
$2,203,317


John Edwards (D) 1.5% of total
$458,990

[Cronus Protagonist]

27. I tried to find religious groups but couldn't

The web site is hard to use when you have something specific to look for. Thanks for the info.

[readmoreoften]

21. That'd be great to see. /nt

[FrenchieCat]

5. Bookmarked!

Thanks!

[angstlessk]

6. sorry, healthcare?? what sector? nurses who support universal health care

vs the AMA which does not? I would also like to see the 'insurance industry' breakdown. PHARMA IS VERY TELLING...AND THAT WOULD BE MY STANDARD, since PHARMA is not a diverse industry!

.3% VS .05% BIG DIFFERENCE!

[redqueen]

10. I see it as a big difference, too.

:hi:

[Milo_Bloom]

12. Insurance info is here

Barack Obama (D)
$390,513 0.4% of his total


John Edwards (D)
$129,600 0.4% of his total


They are identical on it.


I guess I don't see a big difference between 0.3% (Keep in mind that is 1/3 of 1%) and .05%.

In reality, the contributions to either campaign from Pharma are insignificant.

[angstlessk]

13. I saw the insurance numbers..what I did not see was the breakdown

no link, just where it came from...a link would be vetting for us all!

[Milo_Bloom]

15. Sorry, here is the link I used.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F09

[Occam Bandage]

7. Excellent and level-headed

[killbotfactory]

8. What are the percentage of small-donors?

How much of a percentage do they take up?

[Milo_Bloom]

14. Here is a link for that...

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.asp?cycle=2008


28% of John Edwards Donors are "small donors"

25% of Barack Obama's Donors are "small donors"

[readmoreoften]

26. Obama has taken more $ from the pharmaceutical industry than any candidate but Hillary, even Repubs.

So.....

[Milo_Bloom]

28. Exactly... so what?

The concept behind the "taking money from an industry" meme is that the industry is trying to buy influence.


So... how much influence is Big Pharma buying with 1/3 of 1% of Obama's total raised?

[OneGrassRoot]

18. Thank you for the respectful post. Question:

I know I'm gonna get slammed on this, but I'll try to find a flame-resistant suit.

Since this is such a huge part of Edwards' message, including in the debates, why hasn't he been confronted directly, specifically about any contributions from the insurance industry?

I see repeated references to him taking money from trial lawyers, but I haven't seen/read anyone refute the insurance industry lobby or PAC donations.

Is there parsing going on that I'm oblivious to? I would think Charlie Gibson would have called him out on this in the last debate if he had told a bald-faced lie.

What am I missing? :shrug:

(hopefully I'll only get respectful, informed answers rather than flame throwers. I don't want to ruin your post, Milo_Bloom...truly)

[Milo_Bloom]

20. I don't think you are going to like my take on this... but...

I don't think people take him particularly serious enough as a candidate to really bother digging up this very open information.

If he were a front runner it would be a different story, but the news people and other candidates are focusing on the candidates they want to be, and not a 3rd place candidate who they feel if he was going to take off, would have done so a long time ago.

I've gotten into a lot of arguments with people this last week about what some perceived as a "conspiracy" to not report on Edwards coming in second in Iowa, but in reality, I think it is all the same answer.

They are not covering him, not because they are actively trying to ignore him, but because based on his position in national polling and fundraising, they don't think of him as a serious candidate and thus, don't spend time doing stories or researching him.


That's my opinion, for whatever it is worth.

[OneGrassRoot]

24. I actually was going to ask if you felt that was the reason....

that he wasn't taken seriously enough as yet for them to bother countering what he says.

I absolutely support Edwards, but as I've said all along, I'm still keeping eyes and ears open. I want to stay informed.

Many thanks to you for your candor and, again, respectful responses.

:hi:

[yodermon]

19. They're all about the same order of magnitude except the last one:

Pharma

Barack Obama (D) 0.3% of his TOTAL
$261,784


John Edwards (D) 0.05% of his total
$15,000

I'll add HRC just for fun
Hillary Clinton (D) 0.3% of her total
$269,436

[Milo_Bloom]

22. Seriously?

Do you honestly believe there is a significant difference between 1/3 of 1% and 1/20th of 1% in amount of "influence" it buys?

If someone wanted to really influence a politician, wouldn't they want to be a 5% or more donor to their campaign?

[redqueen]

36. Would you care to comment on the information here? From Harpers in Nov last year.

As of this summer, Obama had raised nearly $16 million for his original Senate run and for his 2010 reelection war chest. He has taken in an additional $3.8 million for the Hopefund, his leadership PAC. Such PACs are subject to fewer restrictions on raising and spending money than general campaign funds. Over a six-year term, a senator can raise a maximum of $4,200 per individual donor; the same donor can give as much as $30,000 to the senator’s leadership PAC during that same period. Traditionally, leadership PACs were established by veteran members of Congress, but now they are set up by anyone who hopes to work his or her way up through party ranks. Last year, the Hopefund took in more than any other leadership PAC except for those of Bill Frist, John McCain, and John Kerry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

In several primaries, Obama’s PAC has given to candidates that have been carefully culled and selected by the Democratic establishment on the basis of their marketability as palatable “moderates”—even when they are facing more progressive and equally viable challengers. Most conspicuously, Obama backed Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont, his Democratic primary opponent in Connecticut, endorsing him publicly in March and contributing $4,200 to his campaign. The Hopefund also gave $10,000 to Tammy Duckworth, a helicopter pilot in the National Guard who lost both legs in Iraq and who is running for the seat of retiring G.O.P. Congressman Henry Hyde in Chicago’s western suburbs. Despite her support from the party establishment, an enormous fund-raising advantage, and sympathy she had due to her war record, Duckworth won the primary by just 1,100 votes over a vocal war opponent named Christine Cegelis. (When asked about her stand on the Iraq war by a reporter, Duckworth had replied, “There is good and bad in everything.”)

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275

[Milo_Bloom]

42. I think you mistake me for an Obama Supporter.

I admit, of the major candidates, I am the least repulsed by Obama, but I am absolutely not a strong supporter.

I have many concerns about Obama, including his support of Lieberman, his religion and other issues along those lines.

And I have discussed these issues in threads in the past, much to the hatred of some Obama supporters.


However, my point in this thread was to show the silliness that seems to come along with SOME (not all) supporters of Edwards, painting him as if he is free of corporate influence because he is completely free of corporate money, when in fact, when you look at the %'s of donations, his and Obama's levels of support from the various industries match up fairly well.

In short, if the amount of money donated to a campaign is going to influence a candidate, Edwards is absolutely as likely to be influenced by these industries as Obama, because they have given to him in similar proportions.

[redqueen]

44. Ah I see... thanks.

I was hoping you could tell me it was all lies... :P

And honestly... it's arguable that Edwards already has been influenced by corporate cash, if one looks at his record in the senate as an indication. At the end of the day it's not about who's the most angelic, but who do we most believe we can trust, I think.

[Milo_Bloom]

45. BINGO!!!!

I couldn't agree with this statement any more! "At the end of the day it's not about who's the most angelic, but who do we most believe we can trust, I think."


For me, trust is the #1 issue. If I can't believe what a candidate says, why bother reading their plan, because it is probably all BS anyway.

[angstlessk]

31. but what was left out..was..oil/gas..hedge funds..real estate...many BIG CORPORATIONS

telephones/utilities...I of course do not see the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX in there at all.

[Milo_Bloom]

34. Here ya go...

Oil/Gas

Barack Obama (D) .1% of total
$106,112

John Edwards (D)
$27,850 .09% of total


Hedge Funds/Private Equity

Barack Obama (D) 1.2% of total
$976,574

John Edwards (D) .84% of total
$252,550


Real Estate

Barack Obama (D)
$2,292,188 2.8% of Total


John Edwards (D)
$638,755 2.1% of total

[no name no slogan]

23. GDP has no room for factual, well-reasoned posts like this

please get out of here so we can resume the circular firing squad

[Cameron27]

25. Great post,

thank you. An OP with facts, I'm almost giddy :-)

Nicely done!

K&R

[OneGrassRoot]

30. Okay, so with regard to Edwards, it was a timing issue

As of a certain date (this past August), he no longer accepted donations from lobbyists.

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20070820-lobbyist-challenge/index.html

[Milo_Bloom]

32. That always bothered me.

He accepted money from them up until that point and when he saw he was getting outraised in nearly every category by everyone else, he suddenly declared that everyone should give up a particular souce of fundraising.

Doesn't that strike you as a bit disingenous?

If he really felt that way, wouldn't he have issued that challenge at the very start of his campaign and NEVER accepted any money from lobbyists?


When I look at candidates, I don't take much of what they say seriously, EXCEPT to compare to their actions.

If candidate X comes out strongly against Y, they better be able to back up a history of being against Y.

[OneGrassRoot]

35. I understand what you're saying, but I viewed it differently.

I looked at it more as him really taking the plunge to make himself "that guy" - the hardcore populist, anti-corporate-greed candidate.

He has definitely evolved as he's gone along, and skeptics are certainly apt to question his intentions. I get that and I respect it (as long as the interaction about it is respectful). For whatever reason, I believe his intentions are good and honorable. I genuinely believe Elizabeth's health has been a driving force behind this evolution.

I thought his campaign had continued to take donations up to the present from lobbyists, and that's what I couldn't wrap my brain around.

Thanks again!

:hi:

[Catchawave]

40. Link?

:shrug:

[Milo_Bloom]

43. www.opensecrets.org

I have various links throughout the sub-threads to more specific information.

[Catchawave]

47. NO...I WANT The FREAKING LINK TO YOUR OP STATS....

Thank you.

[Milo_Bloom]

48. Same link. All the information is taken DIRECTLY from opensecrets.org

[Catchawave]

49. What link specifically takes me to the information in your OP ?

:mad:

[slipslidingaway]

51. You have to calculate the percentages yourself. n/t

[Catchawave]

53. riiiiight. n/t

[Milo_Bloom]

55. NONE, you have to use your brain.

Since you seem unwilling or unable to do so... I will help you out.


We start here, with the overall totals

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp

this shows the total raised for Barack Obama: $80,256,427 and John Edwards: $30,329,152


Then you go to the SELECTED INDUSTRIES link http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?cycle=2008


And it will give you the break downs for the various industries.

For example, Health Professionals http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=H01

And you take the numbers given there

Barack Obama (D)
$1,330,743

John Edwards (D)
$419,326

Then you do some simple math. 1,330,743/80,000,000 =0.0166 and 419,326/30,000,000 = 0.01397


You can then rinse and repeat for every industry you wish.

[Catchawave]

56. Nevermind....this is poop.

Next time Stats + Link = Facts.

Try it :hi:

[Milo_Bloom]

57. Gave you both... Sorry the math was too difficult.

[spooky3]

62. but, the denominators used are not appropriate

because a substantial proportion of the contributions could not be coded, and this % was higher for Obama than for Edwards.

To compare apples to apples, see my post further down for details.

[spooky3]

61. catch, please see my post below

and PM me if you want more detail on how to calculate the #s.

[Radical Activist]

41. Who has the most donations from small donors?

Obama.

[killbotfactory]

52. As a percentage of their totals

Thanks to the OP:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.asp?cycle=2...

28% of John Edwards Donors are "small donors"

25% of Barack Obama's Donors are "small donors"

[Radical Activist]

59. Obama has the most people making small donations.

The indicates more popular support. There's no reason to obscure that with percentages.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

46. All that tells you is who employs the donors. You have to report that when you make a donation.

The "healthcare" figure could be small contributions by healthcare workers.

Don't read too much into this.

[FrenchieCat]

58. That is true....

one must put their occupation down, and that is how it is categorized.

If I worked as a teller in a bank, My donation would be part of "Banking".

My Dad works for Baxter as a salesman of Pharma supplies, so his donation to Obama shows up under Pharma.

[slipslidingaway]

50. Thank you for making this a separate post, it tells a different

story when you look at the numbers as a percentage of contributions instead of the raw numbers.

:toast:

K&R

[spooky3]

60. sorry, I believe your calculations are incorrect,

because I don't think you are using the correct denominators.

The table from which the numerators you reported came is the Top Industries page for each candidate:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008 (Obama)
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2008 (Edwards).

A few numbers, from industries not in the top 20 for a candidate, apparently came from other pages.

These numbers did not total the $80mill and $30mill, respectively, reported on the candidates' summary pages.

If you look at the bottom of the Top Industries page, you will see that Open Secrets was not able to "code" a lot of contributions by industry. In Obama's case, OS was able to account for the source for only about $41 million of Obama's contributions and $17 million of Edwards' contributions. A higher percentage of Obama's were not coded (30% vs. 21%). Also, a higher percentage of NON individual contributions were deemed "other" for Obama than for Edwards. The point is that a bigger chunk of Obama's total than Edwards' isn't fully accounted for. Therefore, contributions from individuals by industry should be divided by the total fully accounted for, not by the grand totals, and this changes the percentages.

Roughly (because the Top Industry page includes only the top 20 industries--for example, Pharma is not among the top 20 for either, and the numerators approximately sum to the $41 million and the $17 million, respectively. Those are the appropriate denominators.

When you recalculate the figures, you will see that:

Lawyers contributed half of Edwards' coded contributions and about 22% of Obama's
Dem groups (e.g., ActBlue) contributed 12.5% of Edwards' coded contributions but were not in the top 20 for Obama.
The investment industry contributed 4.8% of Edwards' coded contributions and 12.1% of Obama's
Commercial bankers contributed <1% of Edwards', and 2.34% of Obama's

etc.

Bear in mind also that one problem with the current system is that we don't know which the "health" contributions are from nurses who are freely giving to a candidate, for example, vs. if the top mgt of the hospital "suggested" to some of the doctors that they contribute.

[Milo_Bloom]

63. Gotta disagree with you there.

You can't only use coded, as that doesn't give the entire picutre.

You need to look into the reasons items are not coded.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/coded.asp

This includes "homemakers" "students" or employers who don't fit into a category, as well as "self-employed" "businessman", etc.

The idea is to look at sector contributions as a % of their OVERALL donations. What you are suggesting is looking at sector contributions ONLY as they relate to total number of SECTOR CONTRIBUTIONS.


The idea is too look at how much a sector may influence a politician and to do that you need to look at that sectors contributions as it relates to the TOTAL amount of contributions.

[spooky3]

65. No, I don't think that works, because you don't know

whether a given uncoded contribution is from Big Pharma, for example. You have to use the same decision rule in the numerator and the denominator to give an accurate picture.

As the first bullet point notes, you have no way of knowing what industry the "self-employed" or "businessperson" is in. Self-employed and business people are in some industry. Also, you don't know what proportion are homemakers. And with the "homemakers" they are often the spouses of executives in certain industries. It's not appropriate to assume none of vague or uncodable responses are in any of the industry categories, which is the effect of dividing them by total contributions - it lowers the % from a given industry below where it might really be. It's like re-coding "don't know" on a survey, as if it really meant agree or disagree, or counting a blank answer without a good reason for it. All you know is that a big proportion were vague. Without knowing exactly what proportion falls into what category, it's misleading to use the total contribution denominator when you are trying to show which people in which industries contributed the most. Further, when 2 candidates have differing proportions of coded/total contributions, the industry % numbers can be more appropriately compared. As an extreme example, take the case where the clearly codable industry responses were only 5% for Candidate X, and s/he got $100000 in total contributions. Assume they are 90% for Candidate Y, who got $50000 in total contributions. If $5000 of contributions to each candidate was clearly coded as from Big Pharma, you would erroneously conclude that Candidate Y was much more heavily funded by Big Pharma because $5K/$100000 is much smaller than $5K/$50000. But it's possible, even likely, that at least another $10000 of Candidate X's donations came from that industry, so in fact Candidate X got $15000/$100000, a higher percentage than Y. You just don't know. If you use the denominator of contributions that are coded, you get a more accurate picture because you are not converting an unknown and making an assumption about it that may not be reality.

[Milo_Bloom]

66. That is why you use the overall number.

It is an imperect system, but to cut out all "non coded" contributions, leads to the complete removal of all students, homemakers, unemployed and anyone else who doesn't fall into some overall category.

It's all about "buying influence" and the only way an industry can "buy influence" is to be instrumental to a candidate in a financial sense. Presume a candidate uses money as a marker of decisions, the candidate is going to look at how much money that industry gave and how they could survive without that money... They aren't going to look at coded vs uncoded. They are going to look at how much they took in overall and how much of that came from source X.

That is the analysis I proved and it is perfectly valid for that purpose.

Imperfect... of course... but more valid than only looking at a % of donations and then taking %'s according to that incredibly artificially decreased number.