"They're all owned by the Banks" "They care only about their re-elections" "Look at how much ......"

"..... he's gotten in Insurance Company donations."



The evidence is EVERYWHERE. They are all beholden. Every Damned One Of Them. Beholden to someone, but that someone us NEVER We The People.

Tell me again why term limits are bad.

Tell me again why publically financed campaigns are not the law.




So long as they need cash and corporate cash is the grease that keeps the cogs turning, you and I - the little people - will continue to GET FUCKED.

"If we want X, we have to PUSH Obama...".

Im really getting tired of that phrase.

We shouldnt have to "push" a politician to do the things he campaigned on.

No matter the committee, no matter the party in power, isn't it striking that every committee chair gets the biggest donations from the industries their committees affect?

Just by way of example: Ben Nelson/Insurance.

Go through the committees and see who pays them the most mpney.

It used to be that influence buying was kept quiet, that the politicians knew they had to give in to voters wants on many issues just to insure no one could claim they were "owned" when it came to one or two issues that most concerned their donors.

Now its like the entire Congress and the Executive Branch just thumbs their noses at us and dares us to do something about their corruption.

Im really tired of them ignoring the people on every important issue just to vacuum up a few extra dollars in bribes.

And my, my how convenient.

screw this $2,000 stuff - how about $50 or $100 as a limit.

Yeah - I so easily forget. I have a date with Exxon-Mobile on Friday - what should I wear?!

... that our duties as citizens don't stop after we vote.

Remember, the GOP enlist churches to "discuss" their "concerns" with their Congress Critters, while some of us consider ourselves above following through on our votes because "pushing" is rude.

When I read "We shouldnt have to "push" a politician to do the things he campaigned on" my first thought was "who says?" Maybe that's the way it works.

You do have to keep expressing your views between elections.

And be active politically, if you can do so.

Term limits just concentrate power in the hands of the power brokers, by reducing institutional memory.

they will all slap each other on the back, glad-hand and give out party invitations to celebrate how they all 'played the system' again and kept the piss-ants in their place.

It's long past due to start taking names and drive these assholes back into their little gated communities where they can rot.

As we see time and time again. We need systemic change, and that comes from the bottom up. We need to get in the streets and make some noise. Peaceful strikes, that sort of thing.

FAIR ELECTIONS NOW ACT - HR 1826 IS IN THE WORKS ...

Public Financing of Campaigns -- and we should also have a say on . . .

"where, when and how -- and how much!"

COMMON CAUSE IS TRYING TO GET SENATORS/REPS TO SIGN A 'PLEDGE' TO VOTE FOR IT!!

Call your Senators and Reps -- they also need more sponsors!!!

Congressional Switchboard -- 1-202-224-3121 -- NOT TOLLFREE ...

They will connect you with any Senator and any Rep you want to speak with.

however. WE THE PEOPLE are what greased his campaign wheels.

Ala Open Secrets .......

Individual contributions $656,357,572 88%
PAC contributions $1,830 0%
Candidate self-financing $0 0%
Federal Funds $0 0%
Other $88,626,223 12%

companies.

he did from big pharma, so the point is moot IMHO.

compared to one corporation or industry giving huge amounts. You can piss-off many individuals that may or may not be paying attention but you can't afford to piss-off those big donors and you can bet they not only pay attention but they have ACCESS which the little guy NEVER gets.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cycle=200...

The individuals who contributed to his campaign, did so expecting him to fulfill his stated vision for the country.

either over Obama or over the Dem Party --

We have no counter-force to the corporate lobbyists/enforcers who are

there every day making sure their agenda is pushed thru!!!

over Obama --

whereas the corporations do -- they're there every day -- that's what lobbyists

are there for -- they're the enforcers!!

The American public/Dems which gave Obama close to $1 TRILLION have no LEVERAGE

over either Obama or Dem Party!!!

After all, individuals from various industries donate, and usually in large amounts. Not to mention the fact that bundling donations isn't just a 'Pug tactic anymore.

Go further into Open Secrets and you'll find out the truth of the matter.
<http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.php?cycle=2008&... >

Sorry, but neither Obama nor any other politician is pure. They're all bought and paid for by corporate America.

than he is to any industry.

Some anonymous somebody like myself, who sends in a few hundred bucks that I can spare, or the financial sector who dropped a cool 35 million in his coffers? Looking at how the financial sector bailout has been handled, I think we can figure out the answer.

sector. Several people like you and I will be less likely to contribute going forward if the President doesn't respresent us. I don't know of any credible economist who said Obama shouldn't bail out the financial sector. The arguments fell under the how and how much categories.

I know of a couple of Nobel winners who opposed Obama's bailout plans, Krugman for one.

Sorry, but at $2500 a pop, it would take several thousand anonymous somebodies, all pulling in the same direction to provide the financial leverage to get Obama to move. Meanwhile, the financial industry, along with the rest of corporate America, is in the position where they don't have to herd cats, they already have ponied up the big bucks and have a united front and unified message. Hate to break it to you, but we the people simply can't compete with that. Which is why we need publicly financed elections now. Until that happens we're simply going to continue to live under the two party/same corporate master system of government. If you don't think that this is our current reality then you need to wake up pretty damn quickly and smell the roses.

Krugman suggested we needed to nationalize troubled banks. Either way, it's a bailout.

The $2300 a pop, accounted for a MINORITY of Obama's donations. Further those who donated any amount, did so expecting him to govern as he said he would.

Means a shorter, less severe economic blow while we clean out the diapers of the banks and we wind up taking the road of Sweden, a couple, three years of economic malaise. As opposed to the Summers/Geithner/Obama/Bush/Paulson Frankenstein monster of a solution, which will spawn Zombie Banks ala Japan's Lost Decade.

So now we're throwing money at banks and other financial institutions, with little oversight, allowing the corporate elite to continue the rip off of the rest of us. Do you honestly think that the adaption of this plan, one that cost all of us more in terms of our economic well being, while enriching those in the financial sector, is a coincidence?

The folks who bring down the big bucks, like the financial sector (which rained down 35 million), expect a return on their investment, and they write those checks expecting Obama to govern as they say he should. Much like Bush and Big Oil or Clinton and the financial industry(a president who did more to deregulate the financial industry than Reagan/Bush combined).

Even somebody like Obama is forced to play ball with Corporate America. Otherwise he won't get reelected. Which is why we need publicly financed elections, to take corporate cash out of our government. Do that and you'll restore the power over government to it's rightful place, the voters.

the debate surrounded "how" to do it. Even if we publicly finance elections, we'll have corporate interests spending money promoting various candidates.

Obama's campaign was publicly financed 88% of his funding, was made up of individual contributions.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cycle=200...

Publicly financed elections are those where we pay for the election campaigns via our tax dollars, not with individual or corporate donations. It takes corporate money out of our government.

Furthermore, your insistence that Obama is not swayed by the campaign donations that he received is either naive or disingenuous. Do you think that Bush was swayed by all those oil company donations? Do you think that politicians are, in general, swayed by the corporate donations that they receive? If so, then you can't exclude Obama. If not, then you're living in a fantasy world that has no connection with real world politics.

supported Obama, financially.

It is not naive to suggest that Obama's campaign was driven by the people, financially thus he'll represent us. You think I'm naive, I think your cynical.

I think this thread has a bit to do with some Kucinich supporters smarting that he doesn't get much in the way of money and as such they're grappling for ways to try and even the playing field in the future?

I'm out for now.

term limits. One term and out of federal office or ANY contact with the federal government forever. End career politicians, return to government by the people.

And I'm looking most forward to two Obama terms.

financed his campaign.

Peace

Listen,

I understand why you want term limits and public financing. I 100% support public financing and no more fundraising for candidates. However, term limits are a mistake.

Government is a complicated process and it takes awhile to get good at it. (Just like any profession) Just because someone has been in office for 10-years doesn't make that individual corrupt. It may make them a better negotiator on behalf of their constituents.

On the other hand, if you have term limits, who is left to run the show? The unelected staffers who know more than the people that we elected! This has definitely happened in California -- lobbyists write legislation and utilize staffers to get it through the process. Elected officials may be trying to do good work, but most don't know what the hell they're doing in the beginning so they rely on staff to assist.

In addition, once a person is elected they are unlikely to be challenged because likely challengers will simply await the next open primary.

What we need is to make it easier to fund a reasonable challenge against an incumbant. The way to do this is through public financing of campaigns. We also need to ban a lot of lobbying. Of course, good luck with all of this. We're living in a completely corrupted government right now and it's going to take awhile for us to solve it.

I think it may be time for another independent candidate. Jesse Ventura, but more liberal. (I greatly enjoyed watching him fight the torture fight -- such a breath of fresh air.)

Dems

what does that mean to Obama except he needs more corporate bribes to replace your money?

Meanwhile ... WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO GO? WHAT'S YOUR PLAN B?

ARE YOU REALLY GOING TO VOTE FOR REPUGS???

So, you're back to Square One . . . work for public funding of campaigns --

end campaign BRIBERY ... with public saying "how, when, where, and how much" campaigns

will involve.

And then, you need to get IRV voting going.

If you don't have a better option than voting for a Repug, it's no leverage over

Democratic Party or Obama whatsoever!!


PS:
Also your comments about capitalism -- in fact, corrupt capitalism, seem naive.
Capitalism itself is corrupt -- and unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime.
Economist and Federal Reserve have large stakes in capitalism continuing on as it is.
When you say a corporation/business has become "too big to fail" ---
they are too big and we need to execute our anti-trust lasws. End monopoly capitalism.

This is criminal capitalism and the last thing we should be doing is bailing it out --
$8 to 13 TRILLION last I heard -- with taxpayer money.

This is "Welfare for the Rich, Free Enterprise for the Poor" --

We could have taken over any of those corporations and run them --
especially the auto industry where we could have used the plants to produce
electric cars and gotten the workers back in gear turning them out quickly.

Just the facts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

$1,995,384 from the pharma industry. As such, my original point stands.

lobbyists. Obama is the top recipient of lobbyist money across virtually all industries.


So your point does not stand. The majority of Obama's funding 53% did not come from individuals, it came from lobbyists and various PACs.

of Obama's fund raising. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cycle=200...

Individual contributions 88%
PAC contributions 0%
Candidate self-financing 0%
Federal Funds 0%
Other 12%

Thanks.

called a dictionary . . .

leverage . . .
–noun 1. the action of a lever.
2. the mechanical advantage or power gained by using a lever.
3. power or ability to act or to influence people, events, decisions, etc.; sway: Being the only industry in town gave the company considerable leverage in its union negotiations.
4. the use of a small initial investment, credit, or borrowed funds to gain a very high return in relation to one's investment, to control a much larger investment, or to reduce one's own liability for any loss.

–verb (used with object) 5. to exert power or influence on.
6. to provide with leverage.
7. to invest or arrange (invested funds) using leverage.

And if you need further explanation, it's what the corporations and their lobbyists have over
our government and elected officials -- and we don't!

One thing that comforts me beyond Obama's ability to raise big money from average citizens is the fact that he addressed corporate influence during his campaign. He's passionate about changing the status quo. I intend to give him more than four months to do so.

Lastly, and again, we the people have more "leverage" with Obama than any group of lobbyists.

shortsighted . . .

Obama surrounded himself with DLC appointees before he even took office!

Has any of that changed?

Do you think DLC hasn't been influencing him?

Again, raising $800 billion+ from individuals in the public is meaningless when we

have no LEVERAGE over him! It is corporations who have the LEVERAGE -- not us!!

Obama may have addressed "corporate influence" but he also rates only behind Hillary

in taking money from the corporate/health care industry!

A speech by a politician may be "passionate" about change . . . but where is the change?

Again . . . once decisions are made, they are made. They do not evaporate in four

months or four days, nor four years.

Lastly, and again, we the people have more "leverage" with Obama than any group of lobbyists.

I don't know whether to say that this is way up there on the naive meter reading --

or if its the misinformed meter reading -- but it sure is one of them.

LOL --

again. Let us give the man more than four months before we judge his term in office eh?

This is not about "judging his term in office" ---

it is about judging his policies and his decisions which he is forming and deciding upon now --!

Today, Obama has a near 70% approval rating.

Again, this is about policies/decisions as they are made --

there is no magical time frame.

accomplish all that he wishes to, in four months.

SHOULD be more beholden to the people than to any industry."...........but he's NOT!

Why vote if it's naive to expect a President to represent the people?

eom

Why did African-Americans fight for the vote though they had little chance

back then of fair representation?

You vote to try to change things, obviously --

We are being offered candidates picked by corporations who are guaranteed

NOT to change things.

We need FAIR ELECTIONS NOW ACT -- HR 1826

to end this system of Campaign BRIBERY . . .

Common Cause is working to get Senators and Reps to sign "pledges" to vote for the

legislation -- they need more sponsors.

Call your Senators/Reps now . . .

After we get public financing -- we also need IRV voting --

If your only threat to Dems is that you will not contribute, it's meaningless --

You have to have somewhere else to go!!!

that their candidate lost (in a round about way.)

really shortsighted . . . !!

accurate.

I "bribed" Obama.

unless you're a large corporation . . . ??

Do you have lobbyists . . . are they accepting your written legislation and

turning it into law.

Are you getting a post in the admistration to reverse the intent and spirit of

one of our government agencies?

Certainly not in the appointments he's made, especially Geithner.

Certainly not in the way he continues the "bail-out" plan where big business is effectively stealing money from "the people".

Certainly not in his health care plan which rules out single payer.

Certainly not in his/his counsel's opinion that "the people" have no right to sue the telecom companies for illegally spying on them.

Certainly not in his decision to send more troops to Afghanistan.

Certainly not in his lack of any visible movement to get our troops out of Iraq.

Certainly not in his lack of follow through in closing Gitmo.

So where is the evidence that he is beholden to "the people"?

about your proverbial shit list.

I said nothing of your feelings. You have yet to provide any evidence anywhere that backs up your claims. I'm just asking for evidence and in the meantime I provided some that shows that he is not acting as though he is beholden to "the people".

So... where is your evidence that shows he is?

he would, in many of the scenarios you note above. I, like most Americans polled think that President Obama is doing an amazing job as President.

Regarding the specifics on his accomplishments in just four short months ~

* Working to close Guantanamo

* Lifting the ban on federal funding for international organizations that perform or provide info on abortion

* Reinstating a sound foreign policy of diplomacy first

* Signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, making it easier for workers to sue for pay discrimination

* Tax cuts and a stimulus package targeted to the middle class, homeownership, job creation, education, vs. giving to the wealthy

* Help for struggling homeowners via http://makinghomeaffordable.gov /

* Setting a timeline for withdrawl from Iraq

* Negotiating for a two state solution in the middle east which will impact us all

* Reversing the ban on stem sell research

* Holding town hall meetings after his election

* Obama's pro union stance www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009...

* Launching an effort rid the world of nuclear weapons

* Releasing the memos from Bush administration authorizing harsh interrogation techniques

* Leaving the door open for prosecution of federal lawyers who wrote harsh interrogation memos during Bush's administration

and so on...

is having leverage over Obama and Democratic Party --

we have NONE!

We have no counter-force to the thousands of lobbyists who sit

on Congress' doorstep each day -- and presume weekends at play???

They are there to ensure that their agenda is carried thru.

PLUS, the minute these idiots are elected they're looking for campaing

bribes immediately again for the next election!!!

LEVERAGE IS THE KEY -- WE HAVE NONE!!

cash in my life and I first voted for McGovern in 1972.

Caveat is that I voted for Obama in primary and POTUS election and I am still glad he was elected.

There is a site that breaks down the individual contributions by type of contributor and POTUS Obama was funded in a significant percentage by corporate in general and finance/banking/real estate sectors of "Individual Contributions". Lots of "WE THE PEOPLE" that greased the wheels were not working or middle class nor the poor. Obama is self-admittedly a "third way"/"new"/DLC oriented politician than a populist. This was my biggest doubt about Obama. But we did not have a better choice and POTUS Obama has made many movements in the right direction and inherited a terrible mess. I am certain there are many individuals in government and the military that are willing to undermine his efforts.

I particularly disappointed in the direction of current and future wars and military spending levels and IMO the wrong people and wrong strategy are in charge of fixing the economy. I see others that did not get their "ponies" where the "ponies" are minor detail so this is sad (example gay marriage)too. I want the USA to be a nation where no one is above the law and our international agreements and humanhood. I think the look ahead is BS; we need investigations by special prosecutors now (and I include the finance sector of the economy too). So as I am anti-war and anti-war crimes and white collar crime, I do not have my ponies (yet).

In general, IMO we should have equivalent health care and social safety nets of other modern western economies.

So I am being patient. But the point is that 88% "Individual contributions" is somewhat a mirage when one considers the amounts and interests of the contributors.

For Obama, 47 percent of money raised has come from individuals who have donated $200 or less, while 27 percent has come from persons who have donated $2,300 or more.

For McCain, the numbers are nearly the opposite, with 26 percent of donations coming from people who have donated $200 or less and 49 percent from individuals who have donated $2,300 or more.

www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_is_the_average_size...

I don't think it's a mirage to be aware of the fact that the people of the US drove Obama's Presidential campaign, not corporate interests.

The majority of those individual donations came from people with special interests. The Financial industry, in particular, took full advantage by encouraging employees to donate. Things may look great on paper, but the truth is that President Obama is as beholden as any politician has ever been and his record on dealing with Big War, Inc. and Big Banks, Inc. betrays this sad reality.

Read the links I posted above. The VAST MAJORITY of contributions to the Obama campaign came from average citizens. I can't believe that anyone who paid any attention to the campaign, would suggest otherwise GGM.

donations came from donors spending $200 or less.

not the vast majority.

& at that point, he'd raised less than half the hard money he eventually got.

about 2/3 of a billion dollars.

obscene grafty waste, in my book (not just obama, the whole system).

when you break down the demographics. 88% of Obama's funds were raised via individual contributions.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

contributions under $200.

not the "vast majority". slightly less than half. when obama had raised slightly less than half of his money.

At the time this article was written it was 100%. Of the 100 percent, 47% of the individual contributions to the Obama campaign were from those giving less than $200. 27% gave $2300 plus, and the remaining 26% fall somewhere inbetween. I

If you break that down you have the majority of contributions falling into the < $200 category.

47% = > 200
27% = the max
26% = somewhere in between

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_is_the_avera...

Where Does the Money Come From?

The vast majority of the funds raised by the two campaigns has come from individual donors. The 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and Federal Election Commission rules limit individual contributions to a maximum of $2,300 per candidate, per election for 2007-2008. The primary election and general election are considered to be two separate elections, which means an individual can donate up to $4,600 to a single candidate (half of that to the primary election and half to the general).


Individual contributions make up 88 percent of the total amount raised by the McCain campaign and 100 percent of the money raised by the Obama campaign.


The CRP says the rest of McCain's money has come from political action committees (just 1 percent of his donations) and from "other" sources, which include interest from campaign bank accounts and loans from outside sources (11 percent). McCain's "other" sources also include funds transferred from his Senate bank account, according to Massie Ritsch, communications director for the CRP. Obama has also received a small amount of money from "other" sources, though not enough to account for even 1 percent of his donations.


What's a Typical Donation?

For Obama, 47 percent of money raised has come from individuals who have donated $200 or less, while 27 percent has come from persons who have donated $2,300 or more.


For McCain, the numbers are nearly the opposite, with 26 percent of donations coming from people who have donated $200 or less and 49 percent from individuals who have donated $2,300 or more.

The CRP also classifies the donors, including individual donors, by industry or occupation. Lawyers and law firms have been the industry most generous to Obama, contributing more than $18 million to his campaign. Retirees have given the most to McCain, donating more than $15 million. In terms of gender, men make up the majority of donors to both campaigns, but the percentage of Obama’s funds that comes from women, 41.8 percent, is higher than that of McCain, 28.3 percent.

ane ending this system of campaign BRIBERY . . . .

After that, you need IRV voting so that you have other options than voting

for Repugs --

You have no LEVERAGE over Dems or Obama -- though individuals gave huge amounts to Obama!

Corporate lobbyists are there every day -- pushing their agenda, sitting on the doorsteps

of Congress, making sure their interests are followed by bought-out elected officials.

FAIR ELECTIONS NOW ACT --- HR1825 IN THE WORKS ...

CALL YOUR SENATORS/REP AND GET THEM TO SPONSOR AND VOTE FOR THIS !!1

Then . . . IRV voting!!!

Pharmaceutical lobby. In fact in 2008 Obama received three times more than his closer competitor, Hillary Clinton.

Obama, Barack (D) $1,995,384
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) $662,949
McCain, John (R) $631,562
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) $347,785
Baucus, Max (D-MT) $331,564
Specter, Arlen (R-PA) $275,749
Coleman, Norm (R-MN) $250,478
Dingell, John D (D-MI) $225,136
Rangel, Charles B (D-NY) $200,700
Pallone, Frank Jr (D-NJ) $188,228
Cornyn, John (R-TX) $184,796
Smith, Gordon H (R-OR) $175,800

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=H...

That he'll represent pharmaceutical companies more than you and I?

claim that he wanted to hear from all parties. Single-payer the most favored option by Americans was shut out.

And single payer is the only option that will get the greed out of the healthcare system. And greed is the problem.

was elected.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

He's still "for it". It's a matter of what's viable NOW.

What's with the R/W talking points Greyhound?

The things Obama talked do not match the walk.

I have and speak from experience, Chicago and Springfield are the worst cesspools of graft and corruption I've ever seen or even heard of. From the local beat cops to the Aldermen to the representatives, everybody has their hand out and selling constituents is currency.

There is simply no way he rose through that and stayed clean, so it's no surprise that he's selling us out now. That's also why I didn't support him in the primaries.

I'm for The People, not The Party.

imply things that are not true. At other times people suggest that if you genuinely support a particular candidate/political party, you can't possibly support "the people."

President Obama reins in pharmaceutical prices. There is simply no justification for the outrageous prices. The prices could be halved and anyone should still consider the Pharms greedy.

YOU have no LEVERAGE over Obama or Dems . . .

what are you going to do to them?

Not contribute -- great, they'll raise more campaign BRIBES from corporations --

Not vote for them -- ?? Really . . . are you going to vote for Repugs?

You need public financing of campaigns -- ending campaign BRIBERY . . .

and then, IRV voting so you actually have other choices!!!

statement please?

"Hard" money is contributed directly to a candidate or to a political party. It is regulated by law in both source and amount, and monitored by the Federal Election Commission.

"Soft" money is contributed to organizations and committees other than candidate campaigns and political parties (except, where legal, to state and local parties for use solely in state and local races). "Soft money" is also contributed to organizations, often called "527s" for the section of the tax code under which they operate, that engage in political activity, but it may not be spent for ads specifically promoting the election or defeat of a candidate.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision Buckley v. Valeo (1976) held that limitations on donations to candidates were constitutional (because of the compelling state interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption), but limitations on the amount campaigns could spend (spending limits or caps) were an unconstitutional abridgment of free speech under the First Amendment. Buckley v. Valeo also held that only speech that expressly advocated the election or defeat of a candidate could be regulated. Thus organizations could spend unregulated "soft money" for a variety of activities, including "issue advertising," a broad term that included any advertising that stopped short of expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate through words and phrases such as "vote for," "vote against," "support," "defeat," or "elect".

Beginning in the late 1970s, parties successfully petitioned the Federal Election Commission to be allowed to spend soft money on non-federal party building and administrative costs. Soon, this use of soft money expanded to voter registration, get out the vote, and issue advertising. For example, a wealthy individual could give a large contribution in soft money to a political party. The party could then spend this money on political ads. These ads could not explicitly or expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate (such as "Vote for Smith," "Elect Smith," "Send Smith to Congress," "Vote Against Jones," or "Defeat Jones"), but they could use the names of candidates ("John Smith is an honest man who stands up for the people; Bill Jones is a chronic liar who's taken money from special interests and advocated cutting Social Security. Call Bill Jones and tell him how you feel about this.")

After the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, many of the soft money-funded activities previously undertaken by political parties were taken over by various 527 groups, which funded many issue ads in the 2004 presidential election.

In 2006 the Campaign Finance Institute issued a study on 527 groups. The study shows that many advocacy groups deploy three different types of organization—political action committees (PACs), 527 groups, and 501(c) advocacy entities—in their efforts to influence federal elections and public policy. These cumulative, coordinated efforts increase the groups' financial influence in elections. The CFI analysis presents much new information about the major role played by 501(c)(4) social welfare, (c)(5) labor union and (c)(6) trade association organizations in elections, and the different ways in which they and related 527 organizations are used by Republican and Democratic-oriented groups. (<2>).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_Un...


The "individual donations" are hard money.

eom

health industry -- and/or insurance -- !!!

the sooner it ends.

a good thing. We could impose term limits at the ballot box, but we don't. They know that. They will not impose limits on themselves, just like they did not forego a pay raise for themselves (plus a pay raise for federal judges that Reid stuck onto the auto bailout bill.)

Weasels all.

"term limits" are tricky -- with campaign BRIBERY still going, you may
be replacing a moderate with a right-wing blue dog?

Not a good plan --

Publicly financed elections are in the hands of those who are just fine with the way things are.

I could retire on what they in 2 years. The mutha fuckas suck corporate cock for election campaign financing and then they eventually become lobbyists for the same mutha fuckin corporations. Clearly ...they are the enemies of democracy and we the people.

you damn well know you're not "done with them all" . . . !!1

Their decisions will help or hurt you and your family whether you're paying attention

to them or not. Their decisions will effect your personal life, every moment of your life.

but not entirely true. Do you really think anyone owns Bernie Sanders? Ridiculous. There are quite a few who aren't "owned".

but...

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?c...

over a 5 year period:

Retired $431,399 $431,399 $0
Democratic/Liberal $328,947 $328,947 $0
Lawyers/Law Firms $121,499 $122,499 $-1,000
Education $75,936 $75,936 $0
Computers/Internet $45,675 $45,675 $0
TV/Movies/Music $36,350 $36,350 $0
Securities & Investment $36,090 $36,090 $0
Environment $31,500 $31,500 $0
Business Services $28,700 $28,700 $0
Printing & Publishing $27,480 $27,480 $0
Health Professionals $22,804 $21,804 $1,000
Misc Business $20,885 $20,885 $0
Human Rights $20,800 $20,800 $0
Foreign & Defense Policy $20,650 $20,650 $0
Other $19,872 $19,872 $0
Industrial Unions $18,700 $1,700 $17,000
Lobbyists $17,025 $17,025 $0
Non-Profit Institutions $16,800 $16,800 $0
Misc Issues $16,250 $16,250 $0
Real Estate $15,140 $14,140 $1,000
Civil Servants/Public Officials $15,130 $15,130 $0
Insurance $14,490 $14,490 $0
Crop Production & Basic Processing $11,650 $9,650 $2,000
Misc Finance $10,910 $10,910 $0
Misc Manufacturing & Distributing $10,535 $10,535 $0
Retail Sales $9,850 $9,850 $0
Pro-Israel $9,800 $9,800 $0
Abortion Policy/Pro-Choice $9,150 $9,150 $0
Misc Health $7,600 $7,600 $0
Hospitals/Nursing Homes $7,150 $7,150 $0
Building Trade Unions $6,000 $0 $6,000
Accountants $5,850 $5,850 $0
Food & Beverage $5,600 $5,600 $0
Construction Services $5,350 $5,350 $0
Public Sector Unions $4,500 $0 $4,500
Special Trade Contractors $4,400 $4,400 $0
Transportation Unions $3,750 $250 $3,500
General Contractors $3,600 $3,600 $0
Clergy & Religious Organizations $3,210 $3,210 $0
Livestock $3,200 $3,200 $0
Oil & Gas $2,850 $2,850 $0
Lodging/Tourism $2,740 $2,740 $0
Misc Services $2,690 $2,690 $0
Automotive $2,650 $2,650 $0
Savings & Loans $2,550 $2,550 $0
Agricultural Services/Products $2,500 $500 $2,000
Dairy $2,100 $600 $1,500
Misc Energy $1,950 $1,950 $0
Telephone Utilities $1,700 $1,700 $0
Commercial Banks $1,500 $1,500 $0
Chemical & Related Manufacturing $1,500 $1,500 $0
Download: View Top 20 | All

but they are not so effective today.

See how they reverted the legislation in France when the cars started burning.

money talks bullshit walks.

and corrupt elected officials --

sorry 'bout screaming that but yes, that's what I meant to say.

glad you agree -- but don't see CAPS as "screaming" --

that's kind of an internet myth --

I'm old fashioned about caps/italics, etal --

Look at any legal document - even your birth certificate --

caps and bold type and italics are used to get attention to

what is being said -- even underlining some times!!!

Without fully publically financed campaigns, term limits would be not just ineffective but actually harmful to the anti-corruption quest. With public money, the need for term limits is gone.

The biggest problem with term limits alone is that you never have a politician running for office that can stand on his/her reputation/name recognition. With term limits, corporate/special interests will simply put up their puppets who can and will be bought cheap. Their opponent will probably be bought by the competition because you can't win an election without financial backing in this climate unless you have huge name recognition. At least in the current corrupt system, once a politician has been in office, they really don't need to totally sell out to win, they have the name recognition to win without a "sponsor" if they so choose.

and until people start voting on principles rather than the "lesser of two evils", nothing will change.

with the corporate media make sure of that. Edwards and Kucinich come to mind.