A Peek at the top donors for Obama, Clinton and Edwards

[jackstraw45]

Illustrates our "pay to play" government and why WE THE PEOPLE need to claim our country back...

Barack Obama's TOP two Donors:

1. Goldman Sachs ($369,078)
2. Lehman Brothers ($229,090)

more: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00009...

Hillary Clinton's TOP two Donors:

1. DLA Piper ($356,000)
2. Goldman Sachs ($350,050)

more: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00000...

John Edward's TOP two Donors:

1. ActBlue ($1,965,274)
2. Fortress Investment Group LLC (Edward's employer in 2006) ($187,850)
5. Goldman Sachs ($77,100)

more: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00002...

Why is Goldman Sachs (and similar investment banks) at or near the top?

From Wikipedia:

"Goldman Sachs acts as a financial advisor to some of the most important companies, largest governments, and wealthiest families in the world....Due to its secretive firm culture and revolving door relationship with the Federal government, Goldman has recently been referred to as Wall Street's secret society, with former Goldman employees currently heading the New York Stock Exchange, the World Bank, the U.S. Treasury Department, the White House staff, and even rival firms such as CitiGroup and Merrill Lynch."

[papau]

1. Open secrets sums inividual donors by who's their employer - corps can't donate

[Selatius]

5. True, but often donors disclose their employers, otherwise, opensecrets can't tell either way.

If the corporation wants to influence an election, you better bet that the managers and executives who work there are going to donate in their own name but make sure to the receiver of the funds where that money is coming from.

[papau]

8. Actually the donation form I fill out when I donate asks for my employer - so I doubt any

significance to those that leave blank and those that fill in - most are like myself who fill in whatever is asked.

[begin_within]

2. They donate to all the top contenders on both sides, so that no matter who wins,

they still get access.

[aquart]

4. You mean corporate donors are okay for Obama .

Even if they're the same donors as Hillary.

Well, sure they are. But they're still not okay for Hillary, right?

[begin_within]

14. I'm not making any judgement. I'm just saying that a lot of interests donate to both sides,

to hedge their bets, especially when a race is close. That way, they can corrupt the winner no matter who wins.

[jpak]

3. Looks like somebody is hedging their hedge fund bets...

:evilgrin:

[mmonk]

6. Yes, you can find out a lot about Goldman Sachs if you dig.

It's more or less part of our shadow government.

[cali]

11. oooh, does that mean that Jon Corzine is really some evil stealth

right winger who voted against the IWR and had a very liberal Senate record, just to fool everyone? He was CEO of Goldman Sachs, you know.

Run with simplistic and you end up with lots of conflict- because it's all way more complicated than that.

[mmonk]

13. The influence of Goldman Sachs is very strong. Much stronger than your vote

or consideration. It has a lot to do with implementation of economic models, privatization and banking. However, it is only one part of influence. I'll leave you with an excerpt from "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein, chapter 11, Bonfire of a Young Democracy", p. 243:

"These were also the years of Argentina's notoriously corrupt privatization circus, hailed as "A Bravo New World" in an investment report by Goldman Sachs. Carlos Menem, the Peronist president who came to power promising to be the voice of the working man, was in charge during those years, downsizing and then selling the oil fields, the phone system, the airline, the trains, the airport, the highways, the water system, the banks, the Buenos Aires zoo, and eventually, the post office and the national pension plan. As the country's wealth moved offshore, the lifestyles of Argentina's politicians grew increasingly lavish."

[killbotfactory]

7. Why don't you mention the fact that...

Obama has over half a million individual donors, and most of them are small donors?

Wouldn't that trump the piddly amount any corporation is directing his way? I mean, the guy has raised 100 million dollars, and those amounts are in the the thousands.

[DFW]

9. Just how is this money going to them?

With the restrictions of $2400 or whatever it is per
individual donor to a candidate's primary and general
election, how does a Goldman Sachs suddenly donate a six
figure sum to anyone? Act Blue I can understand, as they
act as an umbrella for individual contributions, but Fortress
or Goldman? How are they making these contributions? If they
are public knowledge, they have to be being made under some
kind of legal loophole, but which?

[AlCzervik]

10. bundling would be my guess.

[OzarkDem]

12. Yes, bundling

that's how they get around limits.