Obama 2012 campaign breaks goal, records

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"The campaign to re-elect President Barack Obama said on Wednesday it raised $86 million from April to June, exceeding its $60 million quarterly target and eclipsing Republican White House contenders.

Obama's 2012 campaign said it received donations from more than 552,000 people, with what it called "more grassroots support at this point in the process than any campaign in political history."

In keeping with Obama's 2008 winning strategy of tapping small donations, 98 percent of donations in the second quarter were $250 or less, with an average donation of around $69, campaign manager Jim Messina said in a video to supporters.

The figures confirm that Obama, a Democrat who raised a record $745 million in cash during 2008, has started the 2012 race as the cash leader despite worries about the U.S. economy and criticism from some fellow Democrats that he has tilted to the right in U.S. debt talks."

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-2012-campaign-far-exceeds-fundraising-goal-131912258.html

[Major Hogwash]

1. We need to put him over the billion dollar figure.

Because that will cause all the GOPer's heads to explode!!!

And I want to see that on teevee!!
I want to see O'Reilly's head explode first!!!

Mueha ha ha!!!

[ClarkUSA]

2. Awesome idea. Real marketing genius. I'll be doing my best to contribute to make that happen.

It sure would cause spittle to fly in the Koch Party. :)

[FredStembottom]

7. Good.

I want the scary, radical elements of the Republican Party to be crushed.
Humiliated.
Tossed into the dust-bin of history.

[ClarkUSA]

11. Amen to that.

:fistbump:

[Whisp]

87. I would want...

that some •••••••• would shut the fuck up once and for all instead of ••••• the President at every •••••• DU •••• fuckers.

[FredStembottom]

118. ?

[Tarheel_Dem]

5. +1

:thumbsup:

[Wait Wut]

91. Ahhhh...they're already exploding!

Was just visiting the "other"place. All I can say is...WAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

:dem:

[bluestate10]

110. Freepers heads will explode because some of them have been reading

virulent Obama haters on DU and ended up getting a grossly distorted viewpoint. The assholes had better realize that true democrats will fight their treasonous asses under any format, and those democrats will come out victorious.

[get the red out]

3. Glad to have been a small part

of that mass.

I want to see the GOPers heads explode again too. Next week is payday.

[bluestate10]

109. I contributed twice. I plan regular contributions this year and hope to

give the max next year leading up to the election. I also contributed to other democrats and the Wisconsin recall democrats, the real democrats in the Wisconsin recall.

[lpbk2713]

4. Murdoch, are you listening?

I hope this raises your BP a few more points you scumbag.

[dorksied]

6. What he needs to do is fight harder against the GOP, instead of caving....

when I see that happen, I'll be sending him a fat chunk of my hard earned money... til then, I'll be content to spectate and pray that Bernie Sanders decides to primary him.

[ClarkUSA]

12. Bernie Sanders can't primary Pres. Obama because he's not a Democrat.

And how is President Obama "caving" here, considering freepers now want to burn Mitch McConnell in effigy?

[JoePhilly]

88. Bernie would be running uncontested for the Socialist Party nomination, no?

[Renew Deal]

8. That's a great number.

:bounce:

[Shagbark Hickory]

9. If 98% were for $250 or less, doesn't that mean that 2% (11,040 donors) could be for

hundreds of thousands or even millions?

I always had a problem with this bullshit line.

[AllyCat]

15. Didn't read your comment and then posted about the same thing downstream

+1

This looks like BS to me too.

[Divernan]

16. A gave $69; B gave hundreds of thousands - whose calls does O take?

[ClarkUSA]

20. If that were true, the Koch Brothers would be the biggest supporters of Pres. Obama...

... instead of his biggest monied detractors.

[Shagbark Hickory]

25. They probably are. They'll buy off whoever's in power.

They're not ideologues. They're businessmen.

[ClarkUSA]

32. Wrong. They are ideologues and have pledged at least $80M to the RNC and GOP front groups.

The Koch Brothers are on record as damning President Obama's policies as "socialist" because they are plutocrats who desire fascism, like all business conservatives who are Republicans.

[Divernan]

36. Do the very simple math. O said average gift $69.00

I never mentioned the Koch Brothers - another of your red herrings! And it's a pretty dead on arrival red herring - oh, the stench! Like the Koch Brothers are the ONLY big donors.

[ClarkUSA]

48. Your insinuation re: "whose calls does O take" is what I was addressing.

How ridiculous. Unless you have proof he's doing the bidding of "big donors" then what you're implying is bullshit.

Like I said, Obama 2008's biggest donor was the University of California. According to your logic, I guess he was taking their calls all this time, eh?
:sarcasm:

[bluestate10]

112. Some don't play with facts. Good post based upon truth and logic,

but you are fighting a battle against hysteria.

[EFerrari]

30. Obama Raises a Whopping $86M, But Not As Grassroots as They Want You To Think

Micah L. Sifry | July 13, 2011 - 9:28am

Obama campaign manager Jim Messina has announced that Obama 2012 has raised a whopping $86 million in the second quarter of this year, shattering George W. Bush's prior record of $50 million in a quarter, and way ahead of Obama's fundraising pace four years ago. The official report will be filed with the FEC this Friday, but Messina continued the campaign's tradition of reporting "first" to its grassroots email list via YouTube video. The numbers are impressive, but there's a catch.

Messina emphasizes the grass-roots base of Obama 2012 in the video, rattling off statistic after statistic: 31,000 face-to-face meetings conducted by organizers; 290,000 conversations; 650 local organizing meetings; 60 field offices set up across the country. These are impressive numbers, and further indication of how the Obama team tracks field data.

But when it comes to the hard numbers of campaign finance, Messina tries to pull a fast one on his supposedly grassroots audience when it comes to describing, as he puts it, "who we raised it from." He proudly touts the campaign's 552,462 individual donors who gave more than 680,000 contributions in the second quarter. If you had any doubt that we are living in an age of mass participation in national politics, enabled by the internet's ease of communication, here's more proof. Ninety-eight percent of all those contributions, he notes, were in amounts of $250 or less, with an average donation size of just $69, proof of Obama's roots "small dollar, ordinary people" kind of politics.

There's just one problem with this claim: The $86 million raised by the Obama campaign in this quarter didn't come with an average donation size of $69. That's because, as Messina notes near the video's end, $38 million of that whopping total went to the Democratic National Committee, via the Obama Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee that Obama controls. At OVF fundraisers, a donor can give up to $5,000 to the presidential campaign committee and another $30,800 to the DNC. (Here's an invitation to one that happened recently in Chicago, starring Rahm Emanuel.)

http://techpresident.com/blog-entry/obama-raises-whopping-86m-not-grassroots-they-want-you-think

[ClarkUSA]

33. "552,462 individual donors who gave more than 680,000 contributions" sounds good to me.

I'll bet that's more "grassroots" by far than any other Democratic POTUS incumbent in American history.

[bluestate10]

113. Some people were repeat donors. I contributed three times as part

of the haul. I am damned proud to have been a part of the record and look forward to setting more on the way to re-electing President Obama.

[Divernan]

37. They were pushing hard for even $10 donations, so they could claim LOTS of donors.

Because of my earlier donations to Obama in his primary and then Novemeber elections, they called me repeatedly this year. They would start out asking for $250, and quickly drop it down when I replied I couldn't afford $250. By the end of the call they're BEGGING for even $10.00. I knew it was because they were desperate to be able to claim the largest possible number of donors so they could bring their "average gift" down to a middle class donor sounding amount.

At the end of the conversation I told them that Obama had been so good to the banks, Big Pharma, Big Health Insurance, the MIC profiteers and those benefitting from the extended Bush tax cuts for the uber wealthy, etc., and with the Citizens United ruling, he obviously didn't need my paltry donation, which I would be giving directly to democrats mounting primary challenges to the Blue Dog Democrats in my state.

[ClarkUSA]

I disagree. Obama 2008 asked for $5 donations when Hillary was still considered "inevitable" in 2007

This down-to-earth grassroots approach was never done before Candidate Obama. Other groups, such as MoveOn.org now do the same thing.

Your cynicism is contrary to the facts. I see it as OFA's sensitivity to grassroots' economic situation. Not everyone has alot to give but every dollar has always been appreciated by the Obama campaign since Day One.

[originalpckelly]

49. Tell that to Howard Dean.

[ClarkUSA]

53. “They were Apollo 11, and we were the Wright Brothers,” said Joe Trippi.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&q=joe+trippy+dean+to+obama+wright+brothers+to+apollo+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

Joe Trippi should know, right?

[originalpckelly]

54. True, but you make it seems as if it had never been done before AT ALL.

[ClarkUSA]

57. Obama 2008 pioneered small donation campaign events.

Are you talking about something else?

[originalpckelly]

64. Yeah, but does actually give a shit about the guy who donates $5 or the one who donates $2,000?

I think you'd have to be a moron to think anything else is true.

It's not mathematically possible to meet with all those people.

On the other hand, he might just be able to meet with someone who sets up a fundraiser for him that nets $100,000+. Wouldn't you meet with that person?

[ClarkUSA]

74. Yes, Pres. Obama does, otherwise he wouldn't have outraged many by compromising to get UI extended.

$2000 isn't a whole lot of money. I know members of my middle-class family who gave that both in the primaries and during the GE. They gave up family vacations both years to do so. Yet I don't recall any of them telling me about any private calls to the WH asking and getting favors.

:sarcasm:

[originalpckelly]

77. No, it's not.

On the other hand, I seriously doubt that you organized a fundraiser of many many people donating $2,000 a piece, plus anything else in the way of support.

[ClarkUSA]

82. You got nuthin'.

:boring:

[Divernan]

52. OK, they begged for $5. They still need to mask the big donors

behind large numbers of small donors. That's not cynicism - it's Realpolitik.

And if every dollar "has always been appreciated by the Obama campaign since Day One" I don't think we progressives would have been ridiculed by Obama & his boy Rahm as purists, fucking retarded, etc., and I don't think Obama would have ignored pushing for programs supported by the majority of Americans, and certainly by the majority of Democrats.

[ClarkUSA]

55. No, they asked politely. And prove "they still need to mask the big donors".

Your negative smears have zero basis, as usual. Only a fool would think that the Obama campaign is being underhanded when they have been very open about the need to compete against the Koch Party and the effects of Citizen's United, which resulted in Democrats being outspent during the 2010 midterms by a huge margin.

[originalpckelly]

56. Do you actually care about normal people or are you just here to promote this one man?

Who is more important?

[ClarkUSA]

58. I am a normal person who supports President Obama and is a volunteer with his campaign.

That's "more important" than complaining about and attacking President Obama 24/7 for imagined slights and contrived wrongs.

[originalpckelly]

61. Did you know that in 2004's Senate campaign he received 107 PAC donations from big corporations?

What, did he go to Washington, D.C. and become less corrupt?

[ClarkUSA]

63. So? Liberal groups & unions have PACs. Prove that any influenced his mostly liberal voting pattern.

List the names of those PACs.

[originalpckelly]

68. No, I'm talking about big corporations. The majority of PAC donations were from companies.

I went through and reviewed the data, line by line, donation by donation, and that's how many big companies donated to him.

In 2008 he didn't take those kind of contributions, right? Why? The insinuation is that he thinks they are corrupt. But he himself received that large number of corporate PACs. I went through and broke them all out and created a spreadsheet of it. It took me a couple hours to do, but I really wanted to know how bad it was.

Now, some donations weren't much. But in '08 he didn't even take small donations.

If there was nothing wrong with them in '04, then why not take them in '08?
If there was something wrong with them in '08, then why take them in '04?

I just happen to have the names of those companies from my own record after having done this:

Company Name
3M Company PAC
AECOM US Federal PAC
AFLAC PAC
Ameren Federal PAC
AON Corporation
AT&T Federal PAC
AT&T Wireless Services PAC
Chicago Board of Trade's PAC
MBNA Federal PAC
Bank of America PAC
Baxter Healthcare PAC
Bellsouth Corporation Emp. PAC
BP Corp. North America PAC
Brinker International PAC
Bristol Myers Squib PAC
Brunswick Corporation Good Government Fund
Bunge North America Inc. PAC
Capital One Political Fund
CBOE PAC
CHX PAC
Citi Group Pac
Clear Channel PAC
CME Group PAC
CNA Financial Citizens For Good Government
COMCAST PAC
Coors Brewing Company PAC
Cornell Companies PAC
Countrywide Financial Corporation PAC
Coventry Health Care Inc.
CVS/Caremark
Dean Foods
John Deere (Deere & Co.)
DLA Piper
DTE Energy Corp.
E*Trade
DuPont
Eastman Kodak
EBAY
Edison International
Northrup Grumman
Ernst & Young
Exelon
Express Scripts
Exxon Mobil Corp.
FedexPAC
Fifth Third Bancorp
First Data Corp
Lasalle Bank
Ford Motor Company
GE PAC
General Mills
GTR-ICR
Hallmark Cards
HCA Inc.
Holland & Knight
Honeywell International
HSBC North America
Humana Inc.
J.P. Morgan Chase
Johnson & Johnson
Kellogg Company
Kirkland & Ellis
KPMG
Lamar Corporation
Lockheed Martin Corp.
Marathon Oil
MCapitol
McDermott Will & Emery
McKesson Corp.
Medco Health Solutions
MetLife
Mortgage Bankers Association
Motorola
New Century Financial Corporation
Northern Trust Corp.
Parsons Brinkerhoff
Peoples Energy Corp.
Pepco Energy
Pepsico
Principal Life Insurance Corp.
Providian
Prudential Financial
Regions Financial
Safeway
Sears Holdings Corp.
Sempra Energy
Siemens Corp.
Sprint
Boeing
Caterpillar Inc.
Chubb Corporation
Coca-Cola
The Hartford
The Phoenix Companies
The Travelers Companies
The Walt Disney Corp.
Trans Union
US Bancorp
United Airlines
UPS
United Technologies
United Health Group
Verizon
Viacom
W. R. Berkley
Walgreen Co.
Waste Management

Those are the names of the big companies that donated via PACs to him. This does not include the donations received by his campaign from upper management at those companies.

And this is not a lie, not one word I have said is a lie. It's all public record and you may take a stroll through the FEC.gov website to find anything you wish. I warn you that you will be sick that you bought a lie. I wanted this guy to the POTUS in '04, little did I know the same year he was doing this shit!

And the idea is that it opens doors to him. These same people might just be able to get a meeting with him or some executive branch official later down the line. You have to go back in time to find out why things are happening like they are now.

[ClarkUSA]

75. Again, do you have any proof to back up your negative insinuations?

Unless you have proof that a donation led to a bought vote, then you're out of line. Senator Obama had a mostly liberal voting record, so WTF are you complaining?

Like you said, in 2008, he didn't accept PAC money (unlike Hillary and Edwards) so what's the big deal here?

[originalpckelly]

Why would it be bad in '08, but not in '04?

Hey, he's the one who changed his mind. Did he ever offer an explanation of this?

[ClarkUSA]

83. Quote where Candidate Obama ever said PAC money was "bad".

[originalpckelly]

96. He implied it was bad, that not taking it would, "reduce the influence of special interests..."

From here and that's quoting his own statement on the matter
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/obama-camp-sets-new-money-guidelines/

So, if this money from PACs means that a campaign has been influenced by special interests, then what does that mean about the 107 donations he received from PACs funded by the executives of large corporations in 2004?

Was his campaign influenced by special interests then?

And if you read that story:
"The announcement comes the morning after Mr. Obama helped raise about $2.5 million for the D.N.C. at a Manhattan fund-raiser. Aides said the rules would take effect going forward, but would not be retroactive. (Translation: Last night’s haul likely included money from federal lobbyists or PACs.)"

I'm sure they raised $2.5 million by having a massive fundraiser at $20 a plate, right?

Are you going to STFU?

[ClarkUSA]

99. So he didn't say it was "bad" ? You were putting words in his mouth?

You're full of it today. When you have some facts, let me know. I won't hold my breath.

[originalpckelly]

100. OK, he said it influenced campaigns, his own words.

So, did it influence his own campaign back in '04?

And you never said anything about the 2.5 million dollar fundraiser for the DNC. What, did that come at $20 bucks a plate? Maybe it was a potluck?

[ClarkUSA]

107. Are you really itching to find some wrongdoing on President Obama's part? Sure sounds like it.

If so, why don't you volunteer for Rep. Issa? He's trying to look for the same thing. He'd love to hear all of your sinister insinuations, I'm sure, but you're just amusing me with all that snide nonsense.

I take it you're not pleased that President Obama broke a fundraising record this quarter? :rofl:

[JoePhilly]

90. He's rasing lots of money ... and you hate it. Just say that.

[EFerrari]

98. Project much?

[JoePhilly]

105. I don;t think that word means what you think it means ....

I'm very happy he's getting lots of donations ... are you happy? Seems not.

If I was projecting, I'd be claiming that YOU are happy that he's getting lots of donations.

But you don't seem very happy ... you seem very concerned.

Me ... not so much.

I hope he raises a ton of money to fight the GOP and right wing candidates who will definitely benefit from Citizen's United.

To sum up ... "projecting" means you ascribe your own emotional state, or your view, onto some one else (like when the GOP claims that Obama is a racist).

What I said indicates that I think that your position is about 180 degrees separated from my own. And so, not projection.

[EFerrari]

117. It means exactly what I think it means.

I posted an article I found this morning without comment but you are convinced I "hate" the president and that I am not "happy" about the money he's raised and that I am "very concerned".

How did you deduce all of that without any comment whatsoever from me?

Projection.

[mdmc]

31. 1

[brooklynite]

94. No - max contribution is $2500 individual or $5000 PAC

[bvar22]

10. If I were in the Top 2%,

I would be shoveling money to Obama as fast as I could.
They have done very well,
and the Corporate Overlords should be very happy with his performance.



Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

[ClarkUSA]

13. The Koch Brothers and The Chamber of Commerce disagree with your opinion...

... considering they and their GOP minions (see Mitch McConnell talk about his top priority) are doing everything they can to make sure President Obama is a one-termer.

[bvar22]

23. When you're THAT rich, you can buy BOTH parties.

Did you know that the Koch Brothers were primary funders of the DLC?

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://www.americablog.com/2010/08/koch-industries-gave-funding-to-dlc-and.html



The DLC New Team

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)

[ClarkUSA]

34. That explains Bill Clinton's legacy and NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo's refusal to raise taxes on the rich...

... aka. the Koch Brothers, who are based in New York City. You'd better hope Andrew Cuomo doesn't ever win the Democratic nomination. It also explains some Blue Dogs votes against Pres. Obama's policies.

But facts show that the Koch Brothers are Pres. Obama's ideological and monied enemies during this campaign year. The Koch Brothers want him to be a one-termer. They have publicly pledged at least $80M to the RNC and GOP front groups to that end. That should tell you something.

[bvar22]

35. Aside from that,

are you enjoying the Kabuki Theater?
Can you appreciate how well Choreographed it is?

Unfortunately, I've seen this one before,
and it doesn't end well for the Working Class, the Retired, and the Poor.

Cherish your memories, SUCKER!
because we're TAKING everything else!
Hahahahahahaha!

[ClarkUSA]

40. I have no interest in empty rhetoric.

[AllyCat]

14. So those 2% of the donations not from the "little people" Obama is refusing to represent

must be the bulk of the donations. Big money from big money. It's just representative of our current income inequality. The 98%ers have NOTHING on the 2%.

98% of the donations is not the same as 98% of the total cash involved. I think this is weasel words.

[Shagbark Hickory]

17. The corporations, foreign and domestic, can now influence our politics.

[ClarkUSA]

19. You must be talking about the Koch Brothers and the Republicans in Congress.

[Shagbark Hickory]

22. The Kocks donate to democrats too. nm

[ClarkUSA]

24. Yes, like Andrew Cuomo... but somehow Cuomo is a hero. The Koch Brothers hate Pres. Obama...

... and have pledged at least $80M to the RNC and outside groups to defeat him next year... but somehow Pres. Obama is demonized.

[Shagbark Hickory]

27. Like I said, they'll buy off whoever they have to.

If they think the R's are going to win, they'll send them money. If Obama will remain in power, they'll buy him off.

[ClarkUSA]

29. They obviously haven't bought off Pres. Obama because they clearly hate Obama's policies.

<< If Obama will remain in power, they'll buy him off.>>

Crystal ball prediction aside, it's clear President Obama is impervious to their entreaties, unlike Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Both The Chamber of Commerce and their corporate and GOP allies, like the Koch Brothers and Mitch McConnell respectively, have made it their top priority to make sure President Obama is a one-termer.

[ClarkUSA]

18. Bullshit. Obama represented 'the "little people"' when he compromised to get a UI extension...

... it's the whiners who don't represent 'the "little people"' when they forget that and everything else Pres. Obama has done (see HCR, Wall Street reform, credit card reform, the first homeless initiative in decades, etc.)

[Shagbark Hickory]

21. That's hilarious.

Where do I begin?
Are you talking about Health "insurance" reform?? The thing that requires everyone to buy a policy from a private insurance company?

OR the wall street reform that rewarded rather than prosecute the banksters?

[ClarkUSA]

26. You're full of complaints and negative rhetoric today, aren't you?

Is President Obama's and the DNC's good campaign finance news bumming you out?

Fuck that.

[Shagbark Hickory]

28. Not just today.

Pretty much every day. :silly:

[Divernan]

39. OH, oh! Mr. Kotter, Clark USA used the "F" word. Who's YOUR negative rhetoric Daddy?

[ClarkUSA]

41. Who's "Mr. Kotter"?

:shrug:

[Divernan]

43. Either you're under 30 or did not grow up in the U.S.

[ClarkUSA]

50. Perhaps I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Forkboy]

97. Makes it even funnier.

[ClarkUSA]

101. Looked "Mr. Kotter" up on Wikipedia. Pretty cringeworthy John Travolta star vehicle.

But then, I'm a Simpsons fan.

[originalpckelly]

102. Honestly, how did you not know about Welcome Back, Kotter?

:rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

103. Um, it's spelled "Kotter".

[originalpckelly]

104. Cotter? Kotter? At least I know what the poster was talking about.

:P

[ClarkUSA]

108. Hmmm... that's something to be proud of, I'm sure. I'm happy for you.

You must be much older than I am.

[originalpckelly]

44. Yeah, and only a crooked system would link the two.

There was no reason AT ALL this could not have been handled before the unemployment extension came up. No, it was left until the last minute when someone could manufacture this emergency so that everyone would be blinded to the corruption involved.

"BUT DON'T YOU WANT UNEMPLOYMENT?"
"YEAH, I do, but what does that have to do with tax cuts for the rich that could have been passed at any time in the years preceding this?"

[ClarkUSA]

47. Says you. As a POTUS, what would you have done differently given Republicans...

... were obstructing any UI extension unless the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy were also extended?

[originalpckelly]

51. I would have gone out earlier in the year and started using the bully pulpit...

mindful that the UI extension was coming. This way I would have been able to put pressure on Congress to get it done, before the Republicans could take the people on unemployment hostage in order to steal more money for the rich.

But hey, that's what someone with even the most basic understanding of the situation and a want to actually not pass these tax cuts for the rich would have done.

[ClarkUSA]

59. Prove that your pretty words as POTUS would have made Republicans see the light and capitulate.

Do you really think teabagger-beholden fascistic Republicans would have given a damn about what you say about UI and actually give up on their insistence on extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy?

If so, you must be a truly mesmerizing orator! :sarcasm:

[originalpckelly]

62. Well, once you have them by the balls, they will start to see the light.

Going after the Republicans on their own issue is about the strongest way to attack them. "What, I thought you guys were for tax cuts?"

[ClarkUSA]

65. You're presuming you as POTUS could do by mere words what Pres. Obama could not.

That's a strong and completely baseless presumption. So far, you haven't proven that you'd have gotten any different results than Pres. Obama.

<< Going after the Republicans on their own issue is about the strongest way to attack them. "What, I thought you guys were for tax cuts?" >>

The GOP rebuttal to that would be as it always was: "Cutting taxes on job creators would damage the economy."

[originalpckelly]

70. Then you go out and you prove that they don't create jobs.

"I'm under the impression that the recession happened when these tax cuts were in place. How many jobs did we lose then?"

And you keep doing this DAY AFTER DAY AFTER DAY. And the President is always in the news when he says something.

Or you find out a way to do this by getting them by the balls on something that they want accomplished. Even if you want it too, you hold them back. Because of course, the President can always veto legislation, and if they can't get 2/3rds of the Congress to back them up, the veto stands.

[ClarkUSA]

72. Huh? You're the one claiming you as POTUS could bend Republicans to your will with pretty words.

Suffice it to say, your talk is cheap.

[brooklynite]

38. You DO remember that there's a limit on contributions, right?

Max $2,500 per person and 5,000 per PAC; doesn't buy you that much more influence.

[Divernan]

42. That's why O stashed $38 million of the $85M with the DNC

From the OP's link:


PARTY ACCOUNT, OUTSIDE SPENDING

Obama's incumbency gives him a huge benefit over his rivals -- a separate account at the Democratic National Committee.

Of the total raised for Obama in the second quarter, more than $47 million went to the "Obama for America" fund and more than $38 million went to the Democratic National Committee."

[brooklynite]

93. I don't care how the campaign spends its money; just where it comes from...

[originalpckelly]

45. No, but when they get together and hold fundrasiers...

that's how influence is peddled. You may not be able to donate all the money yourself, but you can hold a fundraiser that brings in the big dough, and since you did it, guess who is going to listen from now on.

[ClarkUSA]

67. Prove your claims. Sinister conspiracy theories without a shred of factual basis are not credible.

[originalpckelly]

76. No, I'm not the one who has to prove dick squat. I'm not the President.

I'm not the one who wants to be in charge of the country. My responsibility here is to raise reasonable doubt. His responsibility is to prove to all of us that he is not corrupt and that he is using his power justly.

That's how it works when you want power. If we have those standards in the criminal trial of a person for theft of something minor, shouldn't we do the same for those who want to make life and death decisions for the rest of us?

1. Is there a transcript produced by an independent third party of all activities that happen at fundraisers, even one on one conversations with the President or any other staff in any way connected to the campaign in ways that might actually influence the actions of the administration?

If the above is not done, then we will never know if there is any corruption going on. We could never know. This man and his people must meet this burden of proof if they are to prove themselves clean.

2. Is there a transcript produced of every single phone call with administration officials, including the President, produced by a independent third party?

Without this, we will never know what, if any, influence peddling goes on. We all know why this isn't so. Just ask Richard Nixon how well this kind of stuff worked out.

3. Is there an open version of every single written communication with the President or other high ranking administration officials?

No, there isn't a publicly available one released on a regular basis. One could see exceptions for nation security, but other than that it's not acceptable to operate without a record. It's just like a court doing the same, but it's more dangerous because the executive branch actually has the ability to wield more physical power. The SCOTUS can't start a war. The President can.

[ClarkUSA]

78. You're not the Attorney General either, so you can stop with the silly conspiratorial allegations.

You're boring me. I've heard all this bullshit before and it's still bullshit. Furthermore, you've proved dick squat.

[originalpckelly]

79. Excuse me, no. I'm simply pointing out that you know nothing in ways that matter.

When someone wants the power to be President, they should have to meet a burden of proof even higher than what you see in a criminal trial.

You are not answering my questions. How can you know he's clean if this kind of a record is not produced?

[ClarkUSA]

80. "Excuse me, no." Really? You are the Attorney General? Wow, hi Mr. Holder!

:rofl:

[originalpckelly]

81. So you don't think they should have to prove they're clean politicians?

This is about apply standards of basic proof to something.

Why shouldn't you have the right to those kinds of information?

[ClarkUSA]

84. That's a false statement. You have created a strawman argument.

How predictable. You can't win an argument with facts, so you make up nonsense.

[AllyCat]

115. Unlimited corporate cash. Citizens United.

[Divernan]

46. Nearly 1/2 of the 552,000 did not give money to Obama before.

From the OP's link:

"Nearly half of the donors had not given to the Obama campaign before, he said."

That must make Obama feel good. Those he's helped for the past 2 1/2 years have come through for him.

Anybody who could possibly afford it and supported Obama or the Democratic party donated money to him in the last election. Since then, many of those donors lost their retirement savings in the '08 crash, or lost their jobs, or lost their houses, or went through bankruptcy. So where oh where did all those new donors come from? Did the word go out to employees of all the biggies which have profited so handsomely under the Obama administration - to make individual donations? Wonder how many of those new donors worked for Morgan Stanley, or Chase, or MIC corporations, or Big Insurance, or Big Pharmacy, etc., Wonder how many of them are registered Republicans? Lots of new people realized what side their bread was buttered on.

It would be most interesting to average out the amount from repeat donors versus the amount from new donors.

[ClarkUSA]

60. Do you have any proof for your claims? Or are they simply more fact-free negative insinuation?

<< Anybody who could possibly afford it and supported Obama or the Democratic party donated money to him in the last election. >>

Prove it.

<< Lots of new people realized what side their bread was buttered on. >>

Prove this claim, too.

[totodeinhere]

66. Alternative Headline: Obama 2012 Fundraising Behind 2008 Pace

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/271768/alternative-headline-obama-2012-fundraising-behind-2008-pace

It all depends on how you spin it. If he is running behind his fundraising in 2008, why is that? And why doesn't the OP mention this?

[ClarkUSA]

71. You're quoting a NRO right wing nut's blogger's bullshit spin? Just you and he wait until July 2012.

Aren't you getting desperate? It's amazing how some so-called Democrats are so eager to downplay this record-breaking take on the part of a Democratic President. Aren't you pleased? Or are you so determined to be displeased at President Obama that you've stooped to quoting a Republican blogger's lame attempt at comparing apples to oranges? Hmm??

It's July 2010, which corresponds to July 2007. When July 2012 rolls around, then you can post the comparison to July 2008.

[Bragi]

69. Is it a good thing that Prez elections cost $1 billion?

Does anyone think there may be a problem with this amount of money being spent by presidential candidates largely on paid TV advertising? Is this a sign of a healthy democracy?

[ClarkUSA]

73. It's speculation that it will cost that much but in the light of Citizens United, Dems have to play.

[Lucian]

85. That money could've been used on better things.

What a waste.

[ClarkUSA]

86. What better thing could there be than to support an Obama win and funding a push for Dem majorities?

Perhaps those who choose to give their money see the big picture.

[Lucian]

89. Presidential elections in this country shouldn't cost millions to even a billion dollars.

Especially when everything is going to hell.

[ClarkUSA]

92. Well, until we enter the Star Trek phase of humanity, Dems have to deal w/Citizen's United.

I agree with you in principle, but I'm also pragmatic enough to know that's a pipedream at this point in US history. I do not want to lose the presidency or the Senate next year to Republicans and I'd really like to throw the teabaggers out of controlling the House.

Thus, I am cheering these numbers.

[JoePhilly]

106. You are right ... Obama should resign.

:sarcasm:

[girl gone mad]

95. Too bad all those millionaires and billionares can only vote once.

[Rex]

111. I bet he breaks the billion dollar mark easily.

[Major Hogwash]

114. He will after news of today's events get out.

Cantor just pushed Obama too far in that meeting today.
Obama will break a billion easily now.

Cantor is the best fundraiser Obama ever had.
All Obama has to do is put up a picture of Cantor and say, "Hell, look who I have to work with. Is this the best the GOP can do?"

Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

[BlueCheese]

116. I hate numerical manipulation. It's an insult to our intelligence.

Saying that 98% of donations were $250 or less is meaningless. The real question is what fraction of the money came in amounts of $250 or less? It's hard to tell, since the given numbers are obviously rounded.

But we can try. The small donor base is 98% of 552,000, or 540,960 people. At $69 each, that's a total of $37,326,240. This means that large donors accounted for the rest of the $86 million, or $48,673,760.

Again, these numbers are off by a bit. But I think we can safely say that well over half of the total raised came from big donors.

Most donations might be small, but most of the money came from big donations. Sort of like how most people's incomes are less than $100,000, but most of the income goes to people making more than that.