Let’s see where these candidates get their money to convince you to vote for them;
Hillary Clinton;
Goldman Sachs $413,361 Morgan Stanley $362,700 Citigroup Inc $350,895 Lehman Brothers $241,870 JP Morgan Chase & Co $214,880 EMILY's List $213,266 National Amusements Inc $210,010 Kirkland & Ellis $179,676 Greenberg Traurig Llp $177,800 Skadden, Arps et al $167,796 Merrill Lynch $165,042 Cablevision Systems $145,313 Time Warner $144,977 Microsoft Corp $143,459 Bear Stearns $141,835 Latham & Watkins $138,598 Patton Boggs $137,200 Ernst & Young $126,865 PricewaterhouseCoopers $121,939
Barack Obama:
Goldman Sachs $421,763 Ubs Ag $296,670 Lehman Brothers $250,630 National Amusements Inc $245,843 JP Morgan Chase & Co $243,848 Sidley Austin LLP $226,491 Citigroup Inc $221,578 Exelon Corp $221,517 Skadden, Arps Et Al $196,420 Jones Day $181,996 Harvard University $172,324 Citadel Investment Group $171,798 Time Warner $155,383 Morgan Stanley $155,196 Google Inc $152,802 University of California $143,029 Jenner & Block $136,565 Kirkland & Ellis $134,738 Wilmerhale Llp $119,245 Credit Suisse Group $118,250
We hear it all the time: “Republicans are the party of big business and Democrats are the party of the people.” Court rulings have even endorsed the idea that spending cash in support of candidates is “free speech.” There sure is a ton of money being spent for something that is "free."
For more than 20 years now, polls of the American people repeatedly have shown that a majority of Americans believe their government is controlled by special interests. Can anyone honestly assert that there is no connection between campaign cash and the policies of the US Government? Does anyone truly believe this?
Well, anyone, that is, besides Mrs. Clinton. “A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans,” the New York senator said in defense of her decision to accept campaign contributions from lobbyists. “They represent nurses, they represent social workers, yes, they represent corporations that employ a lot of people. I don’t think, based on my 35 years of fighting for what I believe in, I don’t think anybody seriously believes I’m going to be influenced by a lobbyist.”
Do Hillary supporters believe Mrs. Clinton’s statement? Do they honestly believe she won't be “influenced by a lobbyist?” Do they believe only Republicans can be influenced by campaign contributions?
In his Super Tuesday speech, Mr. Obama asserted that he isn’t taking money from PAC’s during his presidential campaign. While this is true, he nevertheless has received huge amounts of campaign cash from individuals associated with certain industries.
Take a look at the following information obtained from the OpenSecrets.org website. The data below compare, by industry, campaign funds received by Clinton, Obama and McCain during their Senate campaign runs starting in 2003 through January, 2008.
Ask yourself these questions after reviewing the statistics:
1. Which party is the party of big business (hint: they both are)?
2. Do you believe campaign cash has a direct impact on legislation and policy?
3. Do you believe either Clinton or Obama is free to act on behalf of the American people instead of catering to corporate America?
Here are the four industries that contributed the most campaign cash broken down by candidate. The information was obtained from OpenSecrets.Org.
Note: All amounts in Thousands of Dollars
Communications/Electronics:
--- Clinton: $6,833, Obama: $5,239, McCain: $1,271
Finance/Insurance/Real Estate:
--- Clinton: $18,574, Obama: $12,567, McCain: $5,866
Lawyers and Lobbyists:
--- Clinton: $14,452, Obama: $10,633, McCain: $2,789
Miscellaneous Business:
--- Clinton: $10,828, Obama: $7,375, McCain: $2,394
How can liberal Democrats decry the infusion of corporate cash into the political process when both Clinton and Obama have received more industry campaign cash than their Republican opponent? How can the Democratic Party be the “party of the people” when they, too, are funded by corporations and their lobbyists? If you're an advocate of "lesser of the evils" voting, understand that you're endorsing a corporate-funded agenda.
Big business likes things just the way they are. They get what they want in Washington at your expense. If you're hoping for change, voting for corporate-funded candidates is not the way. The rich will get richer while the poor get poorer. Corporations will prosper while the US Treasury goes bankrupt. Solutions to real problems like addiction to oil, global warming, decaying infrastructure, affordable healthcare, declining literacy rates, and a real social safety net cannot happen when government caters to profit-seeking corporations instead of the American people.
What we’re left with is truly the best democracy money can buy. As we all know, or should know, that’s no democracy at all.
Go to link below to get further details on various financial connections to our illustrious agents of change.
LINK
4 comments:
Chlamor - the reason I haven't put your comments through is that the data you wanted to post was not correct.
Your links do not show what you purport in terms of Obama's and Clinton's contributions.
Here's the right link for you - same site: http://opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp
Click the candidate's name. Even that data is obviously not accurate - because Obama cannot have received $25 from a PAC and then have it broken out into $3000+ increments. ;-)
In fact, Obama is taking NO money from PACs for his presidential run, and he's the only candidate on the Democratic side so doing.
I know you think I've drunken the koolaid. But this is why I support Obama - it's because of his record, not his rhetoric. And no, I didn't write this:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633
Lisa did you read the other posts about Obama?
Did you mean Obama's record of voting FOR war funds every time?
His record for big business on tort reform?
His record in support of John Negroponte?
His record in support of Condoleeza Rice?
His record re-authorizing the Patriot Act?
His record....
Is awful.
I will be glad to address this further if you are being honest here.
Chlamor, I see you have been attacked by the Oborg.
"Resistance is futile. Prepare to be assimilated"
Regardless of all logic, they would have you drink their Kool-Aid and accept their cookies.
Obama supporters turn a blind eye toward every single fact that makes Obama look less than idyllic. They recast reality in the ideal image. They spin the uglier details into something supposedly innocuous.
Witness Lisa's lie:
Obama is NOT the only candidate NOT taking PAC money. Mike Gravel takes none.
Aside from that flat lie, focusing ONLY on PACs makes people ignore the reality. If the candidate takes money in big chunks from the same nefarious businesses who operate PACs, how does the candidate have the "high ground" from which to make claims of being above the influence of big money?
Barack Obama is a corporate stooge, and people like Lisa are fools... or worse, they are rank liars.
Whichever is the case with Lisa, I don't care. The effect is the same. She supports a corporate toady, she makes excuses for pro-big-business interests by so doing.
I find it all very obnoxious, not to mention duplicitous and deceitful.
The Obama blog-attackers are out in full force, just like the Ron Paul groupies were doing about 2 years ago.
Delusion rules! Deceit is king!
Post a Comment