President Obama received donations from AIG's PAC in 2004 during his Senate campaign.

[originalpckelly]

He also received money from the PACs of Morgan Stanley, US Bank, Bank of America, Capital One, the Chicago Board of Exchange, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Credit Suisse, Countrywide Financial, E*Trade, GE, HSBC, JP Morgan/Chase, New Century Financial (a sub-prime lender that was one of the first to go under), and Northern Trust, among other less well known financial companies.

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_give/S4IL00180

[Captain Hilts]

1. They probably gave to all candidates. nt

[originalpckelly]

3. Why would they give money to people who they didn't like?

Do you usually waste thousands of dollars on donating to Republicans?

[Catshrink]

5. They hedge their bets.

They probably contributed to both candidates.

[originalpckelly]

9. Agreed, but why?

In fact, I'll bet that they did, although he was running against Alan Keyes, so maybe not.

Why do they donate to Democrats if the people at the top are on our side?

[Telly Savalas]

26. Why not?

The last year has proven they can piss away as much money as they want on whatever the fuck they want and such capital will simply be replaced with a portion of taxpayers' paychecks.

[BlooInBloo]

32. Hedging mitigates risk.

[Captain Hilts]

12. Exactly. Wall St. gave a LOT of money to Obama too. And Clinton. And McCain. nt

[originalpckelly]

14. Exactly, there is no choice.

You can pick anyone, but they've all been selected in an earlier money primary.

[Political Heretic]

44. The glaring hole in your theory is this:

Wall street, CEOs and corporations are largely UNHAPPY with Obama right now.

For example:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/03/11-16

Obama may not be doing enough, but these overly simplistic assessments that someone is perfectly controlled by a ruling elite ignore layer upon layer upon layer of complexity. Of course big corporations attempt to buy influence. How much influence they actually get for their money really depends on a great many factors.

[originalpckelly]

47. That's because most of them want absolutely no regulations...

Obama does want regulations on corporations, the problem here is that he's not against the corporations, just letting them roam free. In the end that will create the same result as now.

[Political Heretic]

49. If you mean that he is not agaist market capitalism, then you're right.

Neither is 90% of America, and I'm being generous with that 10%

EDIT - you may not see this before you post, but I'm not meaning to be snarky, I just don't have time... I'm on my laptop in a class... probably shouldn't have posted.

[originalpckelly]

52. Free market capitalism is what I stand for, unlike the corporations.

Most corporations are planned economies within a larger free market economy.

When employee x goes to employee y in human resources, there is no transaction of money, and therefore it is not a market transaction. In this way corporations are not free market institutions.

[cali]

17. uh, it's common practice for corporations and other entities to

give to both parties. In fact, it's the norm. Not exactly the same thing as small donors. I'm surprised anyone here isn't aware of this practice.

[originalpckelly]

19. Of course it is the norm, but do they give to the hopeless candidates?

No, because the no name primary challengers have no chance at winning without money to publicize themselves.

Obama was a no name at one time. In 2000 at the DNC he couldn't even get a floor pass! Four years later he was the keynote speaker, four years after that he was the nominee. That doesn't happen without a lot of money.

All politicians that get to the top do this, because they have to. It's not bribery. It's actually a very representative process, much like voting. It's like the rich people get the first pick, then we take over from there.

If someone doesn't have enough money before a primary, they can buy ad time. Do you vote for no name democrats when a better known one is on the ballot? Most of us would not, and do not in practice.

By controlling publicity, they control the political system.

And the politicians don't even have to take a bribe, it's not like that. The rich just give to those who have their interests at heart.

[Uzybone]

2. IMPEACH NOW

[firedupdem]

4. So now what? He's on the take too?

Can we get a list of each and every candidate they have contributed to?

[marketcrazy1]

6. they are all on the take!!

so what else is new!!

[firedupdem]

8. So the President is in cohoots with the failing banks and helping

them because they contributed to his senatorial race in 2004? That's fucking nuts....but you go right ahead with it.

[originalpckelly]

11. Wrong way to think about it.

You imply a conspiracy when there doesn't need to be one.

These people voted with their money before the voters of Illinois entered the voting booth. They picked their guy by choosing to give him money. He obviously passed their litmus test.

[marketcrazy1]

16. and his Presidential campaign

you dont really think he raised ALL that money from guys like me and you do you....

[emilyg]

24. Yes.

[spanone]

7. shocked, i tell you, shocked....politician takes pac money.....S H O C K E D

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. Given the way they run their company, I'd have thought they'd be big Alan Keyes supporters.

And invested a lot of money in him.

[polichick]

13. "Clinton, Obama are Wall Street darlings" was pub. in LA Times last March...

"Some Democrats worry that the influx of money will make their candidates less willing to call for increased regulation of financial markets, which have been in turmoil after a wave of foreclosures on sub-prime mortgages."

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/21/nation/na-wallstdems21

[originalpckelly]

15. He only wants to save corporatism from itself.

He doesn't have any interest in actually overturning corporatism.

The real divide in our country is not between populism and elitism, it's between one type of elitism and another:
1. Fuck the poor and middle class, we have ours. The Republicans represent this faction.
2. Bribe the poor and middle class, so we can keep ours. The Democrats at the top of our party represent this faction.

They both don't overtly state either policy, but when you really chop all the extra crap off, that's what either side is arguing.

[depakid]

18. One of Obama's first votes was a reach across the aisle to Republicans on corporate accountability

to support the so called Class Action "Fairness" Act (CAFA), a pet cause of George W. Bush, essentially forced most state consumer class actions into the backlogged and Republican dominated federal courts. Like the bankruptcy bill before it, class action reform was a special interest extravaganza, with the insurance, credit card, banking, pharmaceutical and auto industries hiring so many lobbyists that there was nearly one for every member of Congress.

Obama's state was also the focus of intense media campaigns surrounding the bill sponsored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. But when the bill came up for a vote, Obama's fellow Illinois democrat, Sen. Dick Durbin, didn't cave. Potential presidential rival Hillary Clinton voted against the bill. Even John Kerry, who went on national television during the 2004 presidential debates and said, "John Edwards and I support tort reform," voted against this bill.

So what's up with Obama? No surprise here, but maybe it's the $2 million in campaign contributions he got from law and lobbying firms that represent many of the big business interests behind the bill. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, he got $60,000 from Mayer, Brown Rowe & Maw, the heavyweight lobbying firm whose partners reportedly helped write CAFA. Obama also got $70,000 from Sidley Austin, home of the notorious Dan Troy, the former FDA general counsel who used his government perch to help drug companies win lawsuits filed by injured consumers.

http://www.thetortellini.com/2006/12/obamas_anticons.html

QUID PRO QUO

[originalpckelly]

20. We never really had a choice in the primaries/caucuses...

they choose before it even gets that far.

[MadBadger]

25. I had a choice between a whole host of candidates. I dont know what primary you voted in.

[originalpckelly]

34. All of them were previously well known.

Aside from Kucinich, who mainly takes money from unions, which of the other candidates in the primary didn't receive this kind of money somewhere along the line in their political career?

Everyone is thinking about the Presidential campaign, but the selection occurs before then.

[L. Coyote]

21. AIG search at open secrets = John McCain $82,600 + "lawmakers owned stock in AIG"

http://www.opensecrets.org/usearch/gsearchresults.php?cx=010677907462955562473%3Anlldkv0jvam&cof=FORID%3A11&q=AIG&sa=Search#761

Dodd has racked up the most from AIG, with a total of $281,400
Next to President Bush, Schumer is the largest recipient of money from AIG.
Citigroup has given Schumer $322,000 in individual and PAC contributions since 1989
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu has given Dodd $169,200 in individual and PAC contributions since 1989

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. has given Schumer $234,000

First article only is:

AIG: Government Bails Out a Heavy Hitter
Published by Lindsay Renick Mayer on September 17, 2008 - http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/aig-government-bails-out-a-hea.html

The Federal Reserve announced today that it's coming to the rescue of American International Group (AIG) to the tune of $85 billion. The nation's largest insurer, which asked the Fed for emergency funding in the midst of financial hardships, hasn't had trouble over the years giving money to lawmakers, however. AIG is on CRP's Heavy Hitters list, which profiles the 100 all-time contributors to federal candidates and committees.

Of all of the companies facing major transitions over the last week, lawmakers owned the most stock in AIG. Twenty-seven lawmakers owned stock in AIG last year, worth between $6.4 million and $20 million. Rep. Robin Hayes (R-N.C.), one of the richest members of Congress, was at the top of the list of congressional investors, owning stock worth between $2.8 million and $11.5 million, while Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) followed with stock valued around $2 million.

Of all the companies making headlines this week, AIG has been the most nonpartisan in its contributions, splitting evenly the $9.7 million it has contributed over time. Sen. Chris Dodd, chair of the Senate banking committee, has racked up the most from AIG, with a total of $281,400, while Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), a member of both the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, takes second with $116,400. Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama collected $103,000 and $82,600 from AIG, respectively.

[L. Coyote]

22. More AIG on open secrets = 2008 cycle

American International Group
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000123

Top Recipients
Senate Dodd, Chris $103,100
Senate Obama, Barack $101,332
Senate McCain, John $59,499
Senate Clinton, Hillary $35,965
Senate Baucus, Max $24,750
Presidential Romney, Mitt $20,850
Senate Biden, Joseph R Jr $19,975

[ProSense]

27. This is completely inaccurate.

Everyone is evidently trying to protect AIG by pulling any little link and throwing it out as real news. Kerry addressed this fully in debates with his GOP Opponent last year:

"He needs to get his facts straight, that's an important part of being a senator," Kerry said. "We don't own stock in AIG. Briefly my wife had some stock through a company that owned the stock, and she had an interest in that company. She sold it and that company then sold the stock."

"As of this moment," Kerry went on, "and as of the time that we were doing any of this I had zero ownership of AIG stock."

link

[L. Coyote]

31. So, which part is inaccurate? You forgot to specify.

That is a 2008 article, you realize.

[Fire1]

23. Screwed again.

:banghead:

[ProSense]

28. Obama accepted no PAC money during his presidential campaign.

I don't even get the relevance of this.

[originalpckelly]

35. In the 2008 cycle Open Secrets.org says Obama received more than $100,000 from AIG.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000123

The PACs are only part of the problem, executives and major shareholders donate individually.

[ProSense]

38. Individual donations are limited to

a couple of thousand. The donations are from employees, not shareholders. The notion that individual dononations to a campaign, which could range from a person giving from $20 up to the limit, has anything to do with this is silly.

[originalpckelly]

41. No, you're quite wrong. Donations below $200 are not reported in the database.

You are right about the limit.

What they do is have fund raisers and get all the top employees to donate money all "bundled" together so that it's clear AIG is giving the money, but through individual people. If you don't believe me, just look it up yourself. You really don't have to take my word for it, whatsoever.

[ProSense]

48. This is not PAC money, and the limit stands. n/t

[originalpckelly]

51. Is there a difference between taking money from PACs and the people who usually donate to PACs?

And you can go look for yourself, you'll see that the exact same people who donate to PACs donated to Obama and all the others last year.

[ProSense]

53. What exactly are you trying to prove with a leap?

You posted about 2004 in the OP and now are trying to draw conclusions based on hypotheticals about his Presidential campaign.

All you know is that individual employees made contributions to the campaign.

[originalpckelly]

54. What am I trying to prove?

That someone approved of Obama's message, before we had a chance to. It was palatable to the kind of people who have enough money to donate thousands to a political campaign, which most of America simply cannot do.

And I also mean to say, it's not just Obama, it's every single person who has an actual chance of winning the Presidency or other high office in America. I mean to prove, and not with much of a jump, that our choices at the polls are made before we get to. That the money is the real election.

[ProSense]

56. What?

"It was palatable to the kind of people who have enough money to donate thousands to a political campaign"?

These were individual donations, they could have come from someone contributing a $20 or $50 dollars over the course of the campaign.

What does this have to do with the crisis?

[originalpckelly]

61. Absolutely false, donations that small are not logged in the database.

Only ones over $200, and if you stop fighting me and actually look at the donations, you'll find them to be of thousands of dollars.

[ProSense]

62. That doesn't matter.

Contributions are reported to the FEC by the campaign, and total contributions from an individual are recorded. The limit is still a couple of thousand dollars, which no individual can exceed.

Also, the number is for the entire 2008 cycle, which is a two-year period.

[polichick]

55. What about this article then - were they wrong? (Hope so.)

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/21/nation/na-wallstdems21

[Adelante]

29. Your boy Edwards took their money

I didn't see you complain :shrug:

[originalpckelly]

33. Actually, my only "boy" is the truth.

And the truth is not on the take from AIG.

[Adelante]

42. I see

So, if Edwards had survived the primaries and gone on to become president, we would see you today posting how his contributors in 2004 or when he was in the Senate included banks and insurance companies. For what purpose? Did you really not know that corporations give money to politicians?? Tell the truth.

[originalpckelly]

45. Actually, this is not the first time I've posted along these lines

I went through and talked about all the candidates and their donations. Clinton, Edwards and Obama. And I threw in Kucinich to show the difference. He takes money from unions mostly. The others do as well, but most of their money comes from corporate PACs and individuals who are executives at the corporations.

[dionysus]

30. yeah, we should have went with hedge fund johnny...

:rofl:

[tritsofme]

60. Give the guy a break, he was just trying to learn about poverty.

I guess all that money couldn't have hurt though?

[Imagevision]

36. So...?!!!

[originalpckelly]

37. So?

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000123

[Imagevision]

57. umm...So?!! next

[ProgressIn2008]

39. Nothing to see here, move along, hey, he's on Leno, kewl! nt

[FrenchieCat]

59. So many new DUers lately,

so little time!

[Political Heretic]

40. So did everyone else.

[originalpckelly]

43. Of course, that's the problem.

No matter which candidate you choose in a primary, it doesn't matter, they've already been voted on by the people who gave them money to buy publicity.

[Political Heretic]

46. That's a gross oversimplification, though there's a seed of truth in it.

See my response to you up top.

[originalpckelly]

50. What goes on in our elections is a battle between two elite ideologies:

1. Fuck the poor/middle class, we have ours'. That's the republican ideology.
2. Bribe the poor/middle class, so we can keep ours'. That's the elite democratic ideology.

We may think it's all about something else, but if you really get down to it, that's the simplest way to put it.

[ecstatic]

58. I guess he should let all the banks fail then

To avoid a conflict of interest and/or cheesy innuendo. :crazy: