Who owns your candidate?

[Trent 0]

Obama
NET Contributions (Other than Loans) $264,492,300.66

McCain
NET Contributions (Other than Loans) $89,206,848.36

I've heard the argument that McCain is beholden to the evil corporations and PACs, so we shouldn't vote for him.

With numbers like those above, who do you think is more in the pocket of people, owes more favors? The guy who's raised $89 Million or the guy who's raised $264 Million?

I'm sure there's some perfectly reasonable explanation on why McCain is still on the take and Obama is a saint who just isn't like the rest, but I still find it curious.

Oh, hello again!

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Obama
NET Contributions (Other than Loans) $264,492,300.66

McCain
NET Contributions (Other than Loans) $89,206,848.36

I've heard the argument that McCain is beholden to the evil corporations and PACs, so we shouldn't vote for him.

With numbers like those above, who do you think is more in the pocket of people, owes more favors? The guy who's raised $89 Million or the guy who's raised $264 Million?

I'm sure there's some perfectly reasonable explanation on why McCain is still on the take and Obama is a saint who just isn't like the rest, but I still find it curious.

Did you say the same about Bush in 2000 when he raised way more than anyone else, or is this situational?

My understanding is that BO raised most of his in small donations from individuals.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[idrankwhat 0]

Obama's been the recipient of small amounts of money from large numbers of people. So I guess to answer your question, he owes more to the average guy than he does the large donor class.

Quote

Obama
NET Contributions (Other than Loans) $264,492,300.66

McCain
NET Contributions (Other than Loans) $89,206,848.36

I've heard the argument that McCain is beholden to the evil corporations and PACs, so we shouldn't vote for him.

With numbers like those above, who do you think is more in the pocket of people, owes more favors? The guy who's raised $89 Million or the guy who's raised $264 Million?

I'm sure there's some perfectly reasonable explanation on why McCain is still on the take and Obama is a saint who just isn't like the rest, but I still find it curious.

[idrankwhat 0]

More specifically:
Obama

McCain

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

More specifically:
Obama

McCain

Well, THAT clears THAT up!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,119]

>With numbers like those above, who do you think is more in the pocket
>of people, owes more favors?

Well, let's see. Half of Obama's money came from individuals contributing $200 or less. About a third came from "max" donors ($2300 or more.)

So yes, he is definitely in the pocket of the people who helped him - which in his case, means more lower income than higher income people, since lower income people are more likely to contribute $200 or less.

[Trent 0]

Over $200 donors....

Obama collected $129,202,690 from 124,253 donors.
Average of $1039/donor

McCain collected $65,972,896 from 51,368 donors.
Average of $1284/donor.

Not THAT far off there to be making the "corporations own him" argument.

Besides... who owes more to the "big" donors?? Someone who got $65 Mil from them or someone who got $129 Mil from them?

It doesn't say anything about WHO the $200 or under donations came from, just that it was less than $200. Using your Bush example, you can see that it doesn't take a genius to get around the donation rules either.

Oh, hello again!

[Channman 2]

Quote

>With numbers like those above, who do you think is more in the pocket
>of people, owes more favors?

Well, let's see. Half of Obama's money came from individuals contributing $200 or less. About a third came from "max" donors ($2300 or more.)

So yes, he is definitely in the pocket of the people who helped him - which in his case, means more lower income than higher income people, since lower income people are more likely to contribute $200 or less.

Is it possible, just asking the question: that if I wanted to give $100,000 to a candidate could I not spread that out amoung 500 individuals? This would allow me to give a huge amount of money but yet shield my contribution by making it appear that the money came through individual donations.

And should I dare ask, has this happened in the past?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I wanted to give $100,000 to a candidate could I not spread that out amoung 500 individuals

Absolutely. It happens all the time - strawman donations are quite frequent.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

...
Not THAT far off there to be making the "corporations own him" argument.....

I don't contend that "corporations own him", especially since his campaign finance reform is one of the reasons that Republicans don't like him. I'd contend that special interests and lobbyists own our government but that's a different thread.

This election is breaking new ground with regard to campaign financing. Obama's doing extremely well at raising money via the internet from small donations while McCain is suffering from the old school fund raiser mentality, not to mention the fact that his party isn't particularly excited about him. That said, I do believe that the RNC is well funded so even if McCain goes with public financing there's plenty of money ready to be spent on his behalf. That will probably work out better for McCain anyway. That way he can keep his fingerprints off of all the personal attack ads that are to come.

As for your concerns over money and influence, you're preaching to the choir if you're serious about it (not simply upset because a Dem is blowing a Rep out of the water in the funds dept). I'm convinced that the only way to fix our government is to treat donations to public officials as bribes and that elections need to be 100% publicly financed. We're seeing the government that money can buy and it's not a good thing.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Besides... who owes more to the "big" donors?? Someone who got $65 Mil from them or someone who got $129 Mil from them?

Reworded:
Besides... who owes more to the "big" donors?? Someone who got half their money from them or someone who got most of their money from them?

I think I'll go make my third contribution to Obama's campaign just so I can get above the $200 mark and qualify as a "big" donor.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Did you say the same about Bush in 2000 when he raised way more than anyone else, or is this situational?

BDIL? Bush Did It Last? Or just plain BDS?

Quote

My understanding is that BO raised most of his in small donations from individuals.

That was my understanding of Bush's fundraising as well, although that report *may* have been for 2000, in all fairness.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,119]

> that if I wanted to give $100,000 to a candidate could I not spread
>that out amoung 500 individuals

You could certainly do that. The individuals would have to agree to that.

[Trent 0]

Quote

Besides... who owes more to the "big" donors?? Someone who got half their money from them or someone who got most of their money from them?

So, if someone raised $400 and $300 of it came from one person and the rest from 50, you'd be more worried about it than a guy who raised $1300 and got $650 from one person? At the end of the day... money is money. Obama's gotten way more from the $200 plus crowd than McCain. (besides, that wasn't my criteria) So Obama's got more money from the "big" donors than McCain, but McCain still owes more to them somehow? I'd say that $129 mil is a lot more "influential" than $65 mil.

Quote

I think I'll go make my third contribution to Obama's campaign just so I can get above the $200 mark and qualify as a "big" donor.

In keeping with the supposedly generous and socially conscious mindset that Obama supporters like to pretend to have... I'd suggest donating that money to charity, where it will really go for a good cause. I'm thinking that Obama might just have enough at this point.

Oh, hello again!

[SpeedRacer 1]

Here's a question: What laws are there to stop large government contractors from buying candidates?

For example: A defense contractor donating huge amounts of $ to the candidate whose policies are most likely to expand and perpetuate eternal warfare.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Trent 0]

Quote

I don't contend that "corporations own him", especially since his campaign finance reform is one of the reasons that Republicans don't like him. I'd contend that special interests and lobbyists own our government but that's a different thread.

But many people DO say that, hence... this thread.

Quote

As for your concerns over money and influence, you're preaching to the choir if you're serious about it (not simply upset because a Dem is blowing a Rep out of the water in the funds dept). I'm convinced that the only way to fix our government is to treat donations to public officials as bribes and that elections need to be 100% publicly financed. We're seeing the government that money can buy and it's not a good thing.

While I'm not sure about your solution, I agree on the idea... I'm not happy about any of my representatives being bought and paid for from either side of the aisle.

Oh, hello again!

[mnealtx 0]

Go read the FEC website. Googling campaign finance law might help you too.

Here's another example for you: Health/big pharma donating huge $ to the candidate whose policies are most likely to expand and perpetuate the healthcare monopolies.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Trent 0]

Quote

Here's a question: What laws are there to stop large government contractors from buying candidates?

For example: A defense contractor donating huge amounts of $ to the candidate whose policies are most likely to expand and perpetuate eternal warfare.

Well, the campaign finance rules and disclosures are SUPPOSED to prevent that, but like most other things... it's broken.

Here's a question for you: What laws are there to stop a large left wing looney from buying candidates?

For example: Soros

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 3,119]

>Well, the campaign finance rules and disclosures are SUPPOSED to prevent that . . .

But is that a good idea? Should there be laws that say you can't give your money to whoever you want whether you are a left wing looney, a right wing chickenhawk or a libertarian nut? I can see arguments both ways.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Go read the FEC website. Googling campaign finance law might help you too.

Here's another example for you: Health/big pharma donating huge $ to the candidate whose policies are most likely to expand and perpetuate the healthcare monopolies.

I'm not sure of his source but Obama's website states that in 2004 $2.1 billion was spent lobbying Congress, or approximately $4.8 million/legislator.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

For example: Soros

Or Richard Mellon Scaife.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Here's a question: What laws are there to stop large government contractors from buying candidates?

For example: A defense contractor donating huge amounts of $ to the candidate whose policies are most likely to expand and perpetuate eternal warfare.

Well, the campaign finance rules and disclosures are SUPPOSED to prevent that, but like most other things... it's broken.

Here's a question for you: What laws are there to stop a large left wing looney from buying candidates?

For example: Soros

By what criteria do you define someone who escaped from Soviet occupied eastern Europe with nothing, made himself into the 80th richest person in the world by his own smarts and hard work, and has given over $6Billion to charity, as a "looney"? Just because he finds George W. Bush distasteful? Well so do many other Americans.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[riddler 0]

Quote

Here's a question: What laws are there to stop large government contractors from buying candidates?

Answer: If you are a rich individual or corporation, you are above the law. Most of the time. Sometimes you get caught and are ordered to pay a fine, but you almost never actually have to go to jail. Joe Nachhio was convicted a year ago; he'll die of old age before he ends up in prison.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[Trent 0]

Quote

By what criteria do you define someone who escaped from Soviet occupied eastern Europe with nothing, made himself into the 80th richest person in the world by his own smarts and hard work, and has given over $6Billion to charity, as a "looney"? Just because he finds George W. Bush distasteful? Well so do many other Americans.

"Soros said that removing President George W. Bush from office was the 'central focus of my life' and 'a matter of life and death.'"

Sounds as nutty as threatening to leave the country if so and so is elected.

I like his millions going into our elected officials through donations and back channels as much as you like corporate money doing the same.

His left-wing looniness has nothing to do with his business, charity, or sex life however... in case you were wondering.

OH LOOK!! Something shiny over there!

Oh, hello again!

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Besides... who owes more to the "big" donors?? Someone who got half their money from them or someone who got most of their money from them?

So, if someone raised $400 and $300 of it came from one person and the rest from 50, you'd be more worried about it than a guy who raised $1300 and got $650 from one person? At the end of the day... money is money. Obama's gotten way more from the $200 plus crowd than McCain. (besides, that wasn't my criteria) So Obama's got more money from the "big" donors than McCain, but McCain still owes more to them somehow? I'd say that $129 mil is a lot more "influential" than $65 mil.

For the sake of this argument, let's say I accept that premise, and because Obama has raised almost exactly twice the amount of money from >$200 donors, he is thus approximately twice as beholden to them. On the flip side of that coin, Obama has raised $135,289,610 from the <$200 donors compared to McCain's $23,233,952. The difference of $112,055,658 cannot be dismissed as irrelevant, and using the above logic, would make Obama nearly six times as beholden to us "little people" as McCain.

Quote

Quote

I think I'll go make my third contribution to Obama's campaign just so I can get above the $200 mark and qualify as a "big" donor.

In keeping with the supposedly generous and socially conscious mindset that Obama supporters like to pretend to have... I'd suggest donating that money to charity, where it will really go for a good cause. I'm thinking that Obama might just have enough at this point.

In the last month I've given three times more money to charities than I have to Presidential campaigns, including breast cancer and AIDS foundations, the Red Cross, Planned Parenthood, and a sexual assault response center. Feeling comfortable with those donations, I have no qualms about also trying to help elect a President who I think will strive to improve the standing of America and Americans.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)