Obama & Clinton raising millions from big business

[OzarkDem]

while big business is trying to run every other Dem out of the race.

Can those of you here who support Obama or Clinton explain why you feel its a good idea to back candidates who will be obligated to big insurance, big pharma, big banking, big defense contractors, big media, etc. if they're elected?

Do you feel these corporations have acted responsibly during the Bush years and will continue to do so when they're controlling your candidate of choice?

[Adelante]

1. Being obligated to Wall Street hedge funds

doesn't appeal to me, either.

[OzarkDem]

2. No answer?

Surely you can do better than that.

Its a serious question. Do you really think that Obama or Hillary will be affected by the massive amount of donations they're now getting from those business sectors?

This is a serious, valid question that needs to be answered.

[Triana]

3. Got Perspective? It appears you don't - so here's some for you...

SPECIFICALLY - look at the HEDGE FUND figures - and PLEASE ANSWER OzarkDem's question, considering these facts.

[OzarkDem]

5. There's some very good proof

Come on Obama and Clinton folks. Help us out here. What kind of effect will this have on the way they govern and how do you feel about that?

Are you willing to compromise and settle for half measures on important issues just to get your candidate elected?

[medeak]

8. can you give me a link for money chart

so I can post on another discussion board? thanks! EXCELLENT

[Triana]

26. right-click on the image...

...and choose "copy image location" and the paste it wherever you intend to post it.

If I type the link in here the image will just appear again.

EDIT: bytheway, the figures came from OpenSecrets.org - the charts can be seen separately here:

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

They were put all in one image for easy comparison.

[ProSense]

11. I don't think that $252,550

includes this:

In 2006, Fortress paid Sen. John Edwards, candidate for the 2008 Democratic Party nomination for president, and the 2004 nominee for vice president, $479,512 for his consulting services, a part-time job. <1> The November 19, 2007 edition of the Wall Street Journal reported Edwards had invested $16 Million in Fortress and Fortress had bought poor performing New Orleans mortgages with the intention of foreclosing on properties in the Hurricane Katrina affected area through affiliates. The charges were repeated in the November 25, 2007 edition of FoxNews' Hannity's America.

link

Where the money comes from

[OzarkDem]

Yeah, you can tell by the way big business is giving him money now

:sarcasm:

[sandnsea]

20. Because he's losing n/t

[medeak]

24. good to see you Sandnsea!

Haven't been here for awhile...just came from your neck of the woods...holy hell...hurricane winds and torrents of rain! beautiful however.

Edwards running #3 is disproportionate for that money chart I believe...as he's way down on the charts except for attorneys and Hillary even beats him at that? best...medeak

[OzarkDem]

27. You know, I used to have some respect for your opinions

not any more.

Your blatant dishonesty and refusal to have an honest discussion of the issues is really disappointing.

Either that or you don't have even a basic understanding of logic or reason. Which is it?

[semperfi the 3rd]

73. Triana ?

Very good information Triana . Now please post the same for
the republicans ?  I believe we will see much greater
donations aquired /

[medeak]

4. was shocked to see this re Obama

from Michael Moore's website:

Among all the candidates in both political parties, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, is the No. 2 recipient of donations from the health care industry, having raised about $2.2 million, according to campaign finance records.

shit.

hey OzarkDem...my Arkansas relatives are telling me Huckabutt is the dumbest gomer guv they've ever had...true?

[OzarkDem]

6. I don't live in Arkansas

but it would be hard to argue with that.

Arkansas has had some good governors in the past, seems like they're really scraping he bottom with Huckabee.

[OzarkDem]

7. They're not giving so much money for the hell of it

There will be quid pro quo, and that's fairly obvious in a close reading of Obama's health care reform plan. Its like Swiss cheese, full of holes.

[sandnsea]

15. And if Edwards were leading

He'd be the #1 recipient because that's the way it works.

[OzarkDem]

18. EMILY

Early Money Is Like Yeast

No, corporations choose their candidates before the campaign begins.

They back candidates who they know will produce results and follow their agenda. Quid Pro Quo.

They know very well that their money controls who wins the race.

You wouldn't last long at Harvard Business School.

[sandnsea]

21. Don't throw good money after bad

Give yourself plausible deniability.

They give to everybody to create the exact kind of confusion Edwards is manipulating right now. Usually only Republicans do it.

[OzarkDem]

29. More slogans

more hate, more nonsense, more refusal to discuss the issues.

I'm going to keep this up so you can continue to make a fool of yourself and destroy your credibility.

[Triana]

30. check out opensecrets.org to find how WRONG you are...

..the facts and figures are there.

THEY DO NOT give to everybody nor do they give to everybody equally.

GOT CLUES?

[sandnsea]

59. They do give to everybody

enough to cloud the debate. No they don't give to everybody equally, but the majority do give to everybody. You're the one who needs to get a clue. If Edwards were leading, he'd have boat loads of money too.

Edwards can't be bought for $400,000, Obama can't be bought for a million. It's ludicrous.

[lisainmilo]

64. y r u confused?

Serious question. The only candidate that has a detailed and clear plan??????

http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/

[lisainmilo]

63. no

He doesn't talk a talk....he actually refuses corporate lobbying monies. He actually walks the talk...

[bvar22]

71. Ane Edwards promise to Throw the Lobbyists OUT of the White House,

and break the Corporate Stranglehold on DC doesn't have anything to do with the lack of Corporate Bribe money?
:eyes:


*Obama will reach out to the Corporations and hope they will be nice to us and change all on their own. (because they have a good heart?)


*Hillary is shamelessly in bed with the CEOS and says "So What???"





The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Crazy Dave]

9. People vote for who they like, not with facts or voting records

Trust me. These corporations don't donate because they're patriotic either. They receive millions in subsidies and tax breaks and in the insurance industry's case, immunity from criminal prosecution from all the deaths from life saving surgeries they wouldn't pay for.

[OzarkDem]

12. So are those voting on personality only going to be happy?

If Obama or Hillary takes office and proceeds to govern exactly like the spineless Dems they've been in Congress?

Are they prepared for four more years of the misery we've put up with since Dems got the majority in the House and Senate? Is that the kind of government they want the next four years?

[Crazy Dave]

22. They'll continue to buy into the same spin that they do now

The republicans blame the "obstructionist" democrats, the democrats blame the "obstructionist" republicans, then they vote together and bipartisan on any bill that benefits big business and screws America.

Mandatory health insurance and I can't wait for them to suddenly start supporting mandatory private retirement accounts instead of fixing social security.

[OzarkDem]

37. I worry about Social Security

There's a huge amount of money from Wall Street being pumped into those two campaigns.

Will it really be safe from privatization? It won't be hard for either one to go back on their campaign promise, since the news media will cover for them.

[Crazy Dave]

68. As much money as banks are pumping into these campaigns

I can guarantee they're expecting the same payback as the health insurance carriers are about to get. Mandatory health insurance is after all pretty much the same republican plan as Mitt Romney's with a different name. A democratic, mandatory private retirement account will only have a different name but be the same as Bush's.

[denem]

10. I've got a very simple answer - business wants to back a winner.

JE lost the primaries last time and a reinvented version was less than likely to do better against a new field. Not having their support anyway, with Joe Trippi he crafted a harder version of Howard Dean 03. As his position has deteriorated, his rhetoric has gotten sharper still: I'll fight for you is now 'i'm going to punch their lights out". Other than Fortress, not many areas of business would be comfortable with that message.

[OzarkDem]

13. Not so, whoever business backs will be a winner

Whoever takes their money will win and will do their bidding. They control the money and the media.

If they decided to back O J Simpson, they could turn him into a winner with money and control of the news media.

[sandnsea]

17. business gives to everybody

That way they can say they don't favor one party over the other.

[OzarkDem]

19. Check the chart above and give an answer

[sandnsea]

23. Edwards took $419,000

If Obama can be bought for a million, Edwards can be bought for half a mil.

[OzarkDem]

33. Talk about Obama

tell me how you think all that money he's getting from pharma, defense contractors, banks, etc. etc
how is that going to influence his administration and public policy if he's elected.

Come on answer it.

[sandnsea]

46. If Edwards was leading the money would go to him

How would it influence Edwards' administration? How did money influence his time in the Senate? I mean, come on, Edwards has a horrible record in the Senate. Obama has an excellent record in Illnois.

:shrug:

[OzarkDem]

53. Still not talking about Obama?

and you'll need to provide a link to back up that assertion.

[sandnsea]

57. When did you stop drinking moonshine?

Seeing you're from the hills and all, it has to be true, right? YOU are the one who needs to prove he can be bought. Posting campaign donations is not enough to do that.

Edwards' senate record is well known, from the IWR to the Patriot Act.

[OzarkDem]

60. Nothing yet?

One would think someone so loyal to Obama's campaign would be willing to defend it.

[sandnsea]

62. You didn't make any accusations to defend

Don't you get it?? Campaigns run on money. Yeah. So did all of John Edwards' campaigns. Who is he beholden to??

[lisainmilo]

66. You are either intentionally trying to pick a fight or you are terrible mistaken

The difference between the monies recieved are very simple. Edwards takes NO MONEY FROM LOBBYIST WHO ACTUALLY AFFECT OUR LAWS.
That was simple. 2. Hillary and Obama TAKE MONEY FROM LOBBYIST WHO AFFECT OUR LAWS.
3. give alot of money to a candidate = lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of FAVORS!

Here is the total monies JRE has recieved (I personally have posted this at least 5 times, but here it is again)

P R E S I D E N T I A L C A N D I D A T E
John Edwards (D)
Former NC Senator; 2004 Presidential Candidate
Edwards is maintaining his steady fundraising pace behind Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, though he has announced that he will be accepting $10 million in public funding-and is encouraging the others to do the same. At the end of the 3rd Quarter, Edwards had $30.3 million, which means he will easily reach the $35 million his campaign originally said he'd need to bring in to be competitive in the early primaries. The former North Carolina senator has vowed not to accept money from registered lobbyists or PACs and only had minimal debt to re-pay after his 2004 campaign.

Total Receipts: $30,329,152
Total Spent: $17,932,103
Cash on Hand: $12,397,048
Debts: $0
Date of last report: September 30, 2007
Totals may include compliance fund receipts


Source of Funds:
(How to read this chart / methodology)

Individual contributions
$30,121,494
99%

PAC contributions
$20
0%

Candidate self-financing
$0
0%

Federal Funds
$0
0%

Other
$207,638
1%

Edit to add link: http://opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?ID=N00002283&Cycle=2008


PLEASE NOTE: anyone who gives a PRIVATE donation has to state what they do for a living and where the work. If I were a lawyer my contribution would fall under LAWYERS. I am not a LAWYER, I am a NURSE, so my contributions fall under HEALTHCARE INDUSTRY. PRIVATE DONATIONS ARE NOT LOBBY MONEY

Lobby donations are paid representatives pandering to the politician in hopes of FAVOR.....THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS AFFECT OUR LAWS.

I really don't find this complicated and I am not really sure why others do??


The truth is, in my opinion, as corporations are melding together, the are getting more and more powerful. The melding of these corporations has resulted in a melding of Democrats and Republicans. As I was growing up, my parents told me to vote Democrat, that was the party for the "working man" and that the republican party was for the "corporations". Sadly, I don't think that is true anymore.

[sandnsea]

14. Edwards raised millions from business in 2004

If he were a frontrunner, various business interests would be donating to him as well. Most business donate to everybody.

[OzarkDem]

16. Still no answer from the Obama or Clinton folk

come on, give us some honest discussion instead of political gamesmanship here.

[Triana]

36. Because the extent to which Hillary and Obama feed at the corporate trough...

....is INDEFENSIBLE.


And when HillBama gets into office, they will be loyal to all those generous corporate donors - THAT is what they were so generous for! DOH!

Sooo we end up with more of the same old same old...corporate stranglehold on our government.

It's not rocket science - but - the HillBama tribe can't defend it - so they will distract the conversation away from that question in any way they can.

Watch...there they go - still.

[cali]

42. Regarding Obama that is false.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3995573

[OzarkDem]

48. We're talking about Obama or Hillary

come on answer the question.

[denem]

25. JE supporters are doing their best to spin this

Turning the fact that he can't get any money into a virtue. Joe Biden couldn't get squat either, and he had a long record of being business friendly. Kerry/Edwards 04 got tens of millions of corporate dollars. Did that means they were going to be business stooges?

[OzarkDem]

35. Still not answering the question

[cali]

28. 1/3 of 1% of Obama's campaign funds come from pharma

exactly the same percentage of JE's funds come from pharma. Do you really believe he'll owe them. And none of the others comprise a significant percentage of the amounnt he's raised. Btw, JE has raised over 8 million from lawyers. 30% of his total raised comes from one special interest group.

I expect this post to be ignored by Edwards supporters.

[OzarkDem]

32. Heh, check the chart in the thread above

Talk only about your candidate.

[cali]

38. That's a response??

I gave you a substantive answer as to why Obama is no more beholden to corporate money than Edwards. You're the one that made the comparison between Edwards and the others. I'm happy to provide you with more information:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3995573

[OzarkDem]

41. Dodging the question, eh?

the question was - what impact will the enormous sums of money Obama or Hillary is receiving have on their administration and agenda if they are elected.

Got it? I can repeat it again if you need me to.

[cali]

45. If you actually can't figure out why it's about percentages

and not raw numbers- as anyone with an eighth grade education should be able to do, I can't help you.

[OzarkDem]

61. Dodging

[OzarkDem]

31. Obama and Clinton supporters can't defend their candidates?

all they can do is attack others?

Is that the substance of these two campaigns and the reason why you vote for them, because you don't want to discuss the issues? Because you hate the other candidates so much?

Is that a really good reason?

[cali]

40. I defended my candidate and provided you with information

demonstrating that Obama takes no more percentage wise from corporate sources than Edwards. You're not really looking for real info. You're just trying to attack.

[OzarkDem]

43. That wasn't the question

Here, I'll repeat it again:

What impact will the enormous sums of money that Obama or Hillary (choose your candidate) are raising have on their administration if they are elected?

[cali]

50. As I said, if you can't figure out why it's about what percentage

of total funds raised comes from corporate sources and not raw numbers, well, I can't help you. It's really quite simple.

[Connie_Corleone]

34. You do realize that all kinds of people work in these corporations?

I work for an insurance company. I'm not an executive. But my contributions are going to show up on OpenSecrets as coming from the Insurance field even though the company I work for is owned by huge Bush supporters.

This is nonsense.

[OzarkDem]

39. You really don't expect us to believe that do you?

Do you think we're so naive we don't understand what "bundling" means?

Please answer the question - what impact will all this money have on your chosen candidate's administration?

[Triana]

47. LET'S LOOK at some of these individual donors...

Top Individual Donors

"The following individuals contributed at least $50,000 to federal candidates and parties during one or more election cycles while affiliated with the organization."


http://opensecrets.org/orgs/indivs.asp


AND AGAIN - their top recipients:

http://opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?Ind=F09&cycle=2008


AND the TOP corporate contributors:

http://opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.asp?Ind=F09&cycle=2008


I'm somehow not convinced you're right, Connie..

[Adelante]

44. Facts

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 picture. John Edwards is as in bed with these people as Obama.

Obama has raised 80 million. Edwards only 30 million.

28% of John Edwards Donors are “small donors”

25% of Barack Obama’s Donors are “small donors”

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

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3995573

[OzarkDem]

49. I'm talking about Obama and Hillary

answer the question. Do you need me to repeat it again?

[Triana]

51. Distract, Distract, Distract.....

...Wow. Still no answers!

Imagine that.

[cali]

54. bwahahaha

got math? Evidently not.

[OzarkDem]

55. I just ordered some nice Chinese takeout

and I'm working on a boring mailing database, so I got plenty of time.

[Triana]

58. Heh...

...expect crickets. LOTS of crickets. ;)

[cali]

52. This is like that whole

creationism thing of yours, huh? Faith based. He gave you the information. Ignoring it doesn't make your case. You've been informed. It's hardly anyone else's fault that you don't understand.

[OzarkDem]

56. Creationism?

I don't engage in those threads, care to post a link?

I'm asking a question: how will the massive amounts of money that Obama / Hillary are getting form corporate America for their campaigns going to influence how they govern if elected?

[OzarkDem]

65. Still no answer? Here's a little help, let's try this

How about a visualization exercise?

Ok, close your eyes and relax. Do some deep breathing exercises. Envision Obama or Clinton (choose your candidate) sitting in the Oval Office after his/her inauguration (you may substitute a pre-inaugural Transition Team Theme if wish).

Your candidate's phone begins to ring, and all of those lobbyists and heads of corporations who donated millions to his/her campaign begin to call. They have suggestions about who should be appointed to a Cabinet position or head of a government agency; or they want to have a meeting to discuss energy policy or NAFTA or want to suggest someone to serve on your health care reform task force.

They want your candidate to soften their position on NAFTA or CAFTA, or they want them to drop the eligibility level for Medicare to 150% of the FPL in their health care reform bill and instead give them a subsidy then require people making $18,000 a year to buy health insurance from them.

Or they want you to not give the public and employers a choice between buying into Medicare at lower cost and make them buy into private health insurance plans instead (OOPS! error on my part, both Obama and Clinton already gave this one away).

They want you to lower those emission standards, or a zillion other things.

These are promises your candidate made to voters.

What will he/she do?

[bvar22]

74. PERFECT!!!

K&R


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[OzarkDem]

67. kick

[Triana]

69. punt.... STILL no answers? Puh. (n/t)

[Triana]

70. Still getting the cricket channel here...(n/t)

[semperfi the 3rd]

72. Money from big business

It is a sad fact that our candidates need to ask for donations
from Big money .  There is another way.  Have the government
cover the expenses of the viable candidates and force the
television producers to allow them equal time to promote them
selves .  Then there will be no obligations to anyone but the
taxpayers.