1. Diane September 25, 2008

   Normally, I like your posts. However, this one really angered me. Did you intentionally distort what the figures represent? Or did you simply not even bother reading your source?

   As described on OpenSecreets, where you got your figures from, “These totals … include contributions … from the floundering companies’ PACs and employees”. In fact, your conveniently left off the two columns that broke down the figures between donations for the companies themselves and their employees.

   For Barack Obama, for example since you singled him out, he received $126,349. However $120,349 of that came from employees and not Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.

   Are you saying that people shouldn’t be allowed to donate to the political candidates of their choice simply because they work for a mortgage company? How very democratic of you. And since the time period the figures come from includes the primaries, did you not think it was reasonable that the winning Democratic candidate should have received a large amount of donations from individuals?

   Please give your head a shake.

   [Reply]

   

   Ron 's reply:
   September 25th, 2008

   #Diane→
   If I was trying to “distort” information, I wouldn’t have given the link.
   And McCain got zero from PACs since you brought it up.

   My main concern isn’t that someone working for little old ABC mortgage on Main Street wants to send Mr. Obama $10 (unless they do it 10,000 times in violation of Federal election law). My concern is that a governmental agency and/or its employees support A) the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, and B) a Presidential candidate.

   It smells bad, really bad, considering that this whole thing was at least 7 years in the making and Mr. Obama’s party was at the front of the line in preventing any decent regulatory reform of the mortgage industry.

   Additionally, when you consider that Obama has raised up to $250 million in donations of less than $200, it does make you think that the little people support him … but you might be wrong. Newsweek has an article on these little donations and it looks like many of them are fraudulent. “Consider the cases of Obama donors “Doodad Pro” of Nunda, N.Y., who gave $17,130, and “Good Will” of Austin, Texas, who gave more than $11,000—both in excess of the $2,300-per-person federal limit. In two recent letters to the Obama campaign, Federal Election Commission auditors flagged those (and other) donors and informed the campaign that the sums had to be returned. Neither name had ever been publicly reported because both individuals made online donations in $10 and $25 increments. “Good Will” listed his employer as “Loving” and his occupation as “You,” while supplying as his address 1015 Norwood Park Boulevard, which is shared by the Austin nonprofit Goodwill Industries. Suzanha Burmeister, marketing director for Goodwill, said the group had “no clue” who the donor was.

   “Doodad Pro” listed no occupation or employer; the contributor’s listed address is shared by Lloyd and Lynn’s Liquor Store in Nunda. “I have never heard of such an individual,” says Diane Beardsley, who works at the store and is the mother of one of the owners. “Nobody at this store has that much money to contribute.”

   Two brothers in the Gaza strip curiously bought $33,000 in t-shirts. You have to wonder why people in the Gaza strip would want them… Anyway, when this was exposed, the campaign came up with some lame excuse that they thought GA was Georgia rather than Gaza. So–where did they mail the t-shirts?

   This summer, watchdog groups asked both campaigns to share more information about its small donors. The McCain campaign agreed; the Obama campaign did not.

   Change? Hardly.

   [Reply]

2. Joe (3 comments.) September 25, 2008

   More like “Change we can get scammed with.”

   Great post, thanks for sharing!

   [Reply]

3. Diane September 25, 2008

   Most people don’t bother to click on source links. So they would assume, since you didn’t say otherwise, that the money was all “kick-backs” or corporate donations. That was MY first assumption when I read your post.

   Secondly, the PAC amount for Obama was what, $4000? This is not a huge amount. And perhaps McCain’s was $0 because a different Republican nominee was supported during the primaries.

   Frankly, I don’t really care about the politics of the matter - I’m Canadian. However, your post was quite biased and that was what angered me.

   [Reply]

4. Alex September 25, 2008

   I find it very hard pressed to believe you aren’t trying to “distort” any information, considering that right in the beginning of your post you blatantly singled out and attacked Obama - “Please notice the second spot and remember that he has held HIS position for only 4 years. That’s an average of $31,500 per year. This is “Change we can believe in?”” - and then reported McCain’s as being very low. I have no problem with heavy scrutiny of any candidate, but this is just another extreme stretch of the truth. The reason Obama is so high on that list is because of his large intake of small private donations; the true number is only $6,000 from PAC’s according to OpenSecrets. Not to mention they have serious problems with their methodology (a problem we all like to ignore whenever the data suits us, which, for either party, is just a disgrace to how we discuss politics)

   I will agree however, at the very least, that the amount of money BOTH Democrats and Republicans receive from lobbyists, special interest PAC’s, and companies is exceptionally troublesome and should be transparent.

   [Reply]

   

   Ron 's reply:
   September 26th, 2008

   #Alex→
   Please show me where the “truth” is stretched. Facts are facts and yes, I singled out Obama. In case you haven’t noticed, he’s running for President. I also listed the amount received by McCain.

   Please list their “problems” with methodology.

   [Reply]

5. SueDoc September 27, 2008

   Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are governmental agencies NOW, but when these donations were made they were stockholder-owned. I have no problem with private citizens exercising their freedom of speech by donating their personal funds to political candidates of their choice.

   What your comparison of McCain vs. Obama really seems to demonstrate is that people in the financial sector overwhelmingly think that Obama is a better choice for president.

   [Reply]

   

   Ron 's reply:
   September 27th, 2008

   #SueDoc→

   Now THAT’S a stretch. The whole financial sector, tens of thousands of people, all are represented by one governmental agency? And it was a a government backed agency THEN as well. Yes, they were stockholder owned, but they were also backed by the Feds. YYou can read the Charter at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sup_01_12_10_13_20_III.html and also at Fannie Mae’s website (which was revised just 10 days ago…??) at http://www.fanniemae.com/aboutfm/charter.jhtml?p=About+Fannie+Mae

   So, using your argument, we should take the political advice of a group of people who got us into a huge mess? No, thank you…they’re obviously incapable of making sound decisions.

   [Reply]

6. SueDoc September 27, 2008

   Well, if people who worked for Fannie Mae shouldn’t be allowed to donate their own money to candidates, who *would* you allow? What about people at universities that receive federal grants? I have a Stafford loan, am I allowed to make a donation?

   [Reply]

   

   Ron 's reply:
   September 27th, 2008

   #SueDoc→
   I never said anyone should or should not be allowed to donate to anyone.
   I think that if you’ve received substantial amounts of money from a group or business, you should not be allowed to vote on anything to do with legislation affecting that business. That would kill special interest money affecting legislation, wouldn’t it?

   I see a huge conflict of interest with these donations. I also realize (again from both research and experience) that candidates know *to the penny* how much each group has donated to them and their campaigns.

   [Reply]

7. SueDoc September 27, 2008

   (Aside: I’m not making an argument as to whom to vote for — I’m not even registered in one of the ruling parties. I was just saying that that is the most you can conclude from the pattern of donations.)

   [Reply]

8. Aung Kyaw (1 comments.) September 30, 2008

   I disagree with your assessment. In this election cycle, the top 4 contributors to McCain are thus far Merill Lynch, CitiGroup, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, which are all major banking corporations (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00006424) while the top 4 for Obama are Goldman Sachs, University of California, JP Morgan and Harvard University (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638). 12 of McCain’s top 20 contributors are from the banking industry, while only 6 of Obama’s top 20 are from the banking industry. How do we explain this? Is it because of McCain’s support for banking deregulation? Does this mean we can make a jump in logic and conclude that since McCain is in the pockets of Wall Street, we ought to vote for the other guy? No, because the decision to vote for a candidate is a lot more multifaceted and doesn’t depend on a single issue.

   [Reply]

   

   Ron 's reply:
   September 30th, 2008

   #Aung Kyaw→
   Great points. Next lets look at the amounts.

   GS to Obama $691,000
   GS to McCain $208,000

   Lehman to Obama $370,500
   Lehman to McCain $117,500

   JP Morgan to Obama $443,000
   JP Morgan to McCain $180,000

   The funny thing about your bringing this up is that the #6 banking firm (#16 overall) for Obama gave him more than the #1 banking firm (#1 overall) for McCain … and Democrats have whined since I started voting 25 years ago that they have less money than Republicans!

   All 12 of McCain’s banking supporters (I even included the accounting firm as a “bank”) contributed LESS than the 6 for Obama.

   You’re right about there being more than one issue though. Hopefully voters will vote with their heads and not their emotions…but I’m not holding my breath.

   [Reply]

9. Ron Wise October 1, 2008

   Where were Ron Paul and Joe Lieberman on the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac list?

   [Reply]

   

   Ron 's reply:
   October 1st, 2008

   #Ron Wise→
   Lieberman $28,250 in total ($11,500 from PACS & $16,750 from individuals)
   Ron Paul $3,500 in total (zero from PACS and $3,500 from individuals)

   [Reply]

10. William R. James (1 comments.) October 2, 2008

    Ron Paul has never, as a matter of personal ethics and policy taken any money from PACs. Of course, those in the list above, have no personal ethics and are unfit to hold the offices they hold.

    [Reply]

11. David tenney October 13, 2008

    Larry,
    I really learned about from your research. I’m very disappointed with Obama because I feel he obfuscates a great deal with his rhetoric– and the media does all it can to go along with this charade. I feel that this information should be required reading for all voters before voting. I really feel embarrassed for the buffoons ( above ) who just blindly charge to the defense of someone ( Obama ) thoroughly covered in dirty money, without being armed with the facts. Will these same people be defending the CEO’s of Lehman, AIG and Countrywide with the same vigor?!?

    Thanks for the insight.

    [Reply]

What's your opinion? Don't be shy! Let's hear it!

Leave your comment here: