**Exposed**Obama Accepts Over $1 Million From Subprime Lending Industry

[chocome]

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/

The Obama campaign’s response to the comprehensive plan Hillary laid out to address the housing crisis today was not to discuss their disagreement with her proposal but to assert that Hillary has received contributions from subprime loan companies.

Considering that Sen. Obama has received $1.18 million from subprime lenders and has taken more campaign contributions from the top ten issuers of subprime loans, that attack rings hollow as just words. Sen. Obama has a record of talking about standing up to special interests and then caving to their demands. Hillary has a 35-year record of standing up to special interests and delivering results.

Obama has taken $1,180,103 from the top issuers of subprime loans. cq.com

Obama received $266,907 from Lehman. Cq.com

Obama received $5395 from GMAC. Cq.com

Obama received $150,850 from CS First Boston. Cq.com

Obama received $11,250 from Countrywide. Cq.com

Obama received $9052 from Washington Mutual. Cq.com

Obama received $161,850 from Citigroup. Cq.com

Obama received $4600 from CBASS. Cq.com

Obama received $170,050 from Morgan Stanley. Cq.com

Obama received $1150 from Centex. Cq.com

Obama received $351,900 from Goldman Sachs. Cq.com

Sen. Obama has taken more money from the top 10 issuers of subprime loans than Hillary. Sen. Obama has received $434,420 from the top 10 issuers of subprime loans. Hillary has received $364,950.
Cq.com; USA Today


http://facts.hillaryhub.com/

[movonne]

1. Where is the link that exposes it....

[joshcryer]

5. Hillary factcheck:

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=6698

[Yes We Did]

17. How about a real link?

You know... to a news source... about the actual post....

Cuz this one links to a Hillary Clinton site and the story they have on there is linked to a story that doesn't even mention any of it. What gives?

[joshcryer]

50. That's not true, it cites the sources.

[Drachasor]

57. It doesn't link to any source that backs up its claims regarding Obama

Look it up.

[skater314159]

62. No citations. No data.

Lotsa BS.

Propaganda.

[roguevalley]

48. Right here:

00

(Hang on. I'm pulling it out of my ass.)

[buff2]

2. You need a link or this is zilch.

[bluedawg12]

49. Here's a link of Obama's top contributors by several sectors

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

HOW TO READ THIS CHART: This chart lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY's List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers.


JP Morgan Chase & Co $282,387
Lehman Brothers $274,147
BARACK OBAMA (D)
Top Contributors
Goldman Sachs $474,428
Ubs Ag $298,180
JP Morgan Chase & Co $282,387
Lehman Brothers $274,147
National Amusements Inc $265,750
Sidley Austin LLP $251,657
Citigroup Inc $247,436
University of California $239,944
Skadden, Arps et al $228,520
Exelon Corp $226,661
Harvard University $225,891
Jones Day $213,825
Google Inc $192,808
Time Warner $190,091
Morgan Stanley $190,026
Citadel Investment Group $173,950
Kirkland & Ellis $163,126
Latham & Watkins $160,842
WilmerHale LLP $155,788
Jenner & Block $151,447

[Hutzpa]

3. ******** LET IT SINK ******** n/t

[The Night Owl]

8. Thank you for the kick!

[anamandujano]

79. Another thanks here.

[Maven]

11. KICK

:)

[rodeodance]

16. you no like when BO smears on HRC are exposed??

[indimuse]

28. Go away with that denial crap!

Let it sink...so tardlicious!:yoiks:

[TheDoorbellRang]

4. It is customary to provide a link to back up your facts

IOW, no footnotes for your research earns you an "Incomplete" on your assignment.

[joshcryer]

7. OK now a link is provided can people stop, please stop posting the same exact thing?

[The Doctor.]

24. Do you have a link to back that up?!?!

:silly:

[saracat]

6. How dare you post facts? Don't you know the Obamites don't want to know???????

Just like they don't care how he voted for corporate interests and against the peoples right to sue corporations. How DARE you? :sarcasm: :banghead: :banghead:

[karynnj]

37. Many of us have posted to you the same fact - these are INDIVIDUALS' contributions

You know the things, ALL candidates solicit.

[Riley133]

72. But it still influences, doesn't it?

And it's a way to get around the "I don't take money from lobbyists" stance.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275 (article which mentions Obama's relationship with lobbyists)

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obamas_lobbyist_line.php (article on campaign fundraising)

The fact is both Obama & Clinton are simply politicians and what they will be able to do once they get into the White House is dependent on many factors, including Congress.

[Yes We Did]

40. Facts? How about a real source.

Instead of a Clinton shill site that links to an article that has nothing to do with their story.

[Henryman]

9. 19% more, is it a significant difference? n/t

[rodeodance]

23. BO is the guy you claim is not Corportist--but he likes their money

[Riley133]

77. Last I checked his top funding was from Wall Street, not corps. That may have changed. nt

[Henryman]

92. Individual contributors, not corporate! n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

10. These corporations are involved in alot more than just subprime lending

weak attack.

[Maven]

14. That's right! Lehman Brothers is also the firm that handles Halliburton's finances. nt

[joshcryer]

51. Ouch.

Hahaha

[democrattotheend]

12. Can you find a neutral source?

I never post stuff from the Obama factcheck because I assume it's biased. I don't think Hillary Hub on its own is a credible source.

[rodeodance]

13. MORE smears from the BO camp!!

[fascisthunter]

15. That's a Difference of $69,470... WOW!

You really nailed him there..... :shrug:

[rodeodance]

21. Dirty tactic ---but it back fired on BO:

The Obama campaign’s response to the comprehensive plan Hillary laid out to address the housing crisis today was not to discuss their disagreement with her proposal but to assert that Hillary has received contributions from subprime loan companies.

[Yes We Did]

25. Did you follow the link?

It goes to a Hillary website, and THAT story is linked to another story that doesn't show any of those numbers.

this is where the Hillary site links the story to.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housing/2004-12-07-subprime-charts.htm?loc=interstitialskiphttp://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housing/2004-12-07-subprime-charts.htm?loc=interstitialskip

and is has nothing to do with their story.

[fascisthunter]

26. Really... DO You Have a Link to Their Charge Somewhere?

I would like to see this "dirty trick" and read it for myself rather than read an interpretation of what was said. How about a transcript or direct quotes.

[Yes We Did]

31. read post 25, that is where the link on the Hillary site takes you to.

And it has absolutely nothing to do with their story.

[fascisthunter]

34. I Saw That.... Where is the "Dirty Trick" Though? You are Right....

If there was a dirty trick I would like to see it proven.

[rodeodance]

60. the dirty trick was to call a presser with the pretence of critiquing

her proposal --that is fine.

but then he slips in the other crap!

two can play that game as HRC shows in the OP

[fascisthunter]

66. Nevermind (nt)

[fascisthunter]

44. I'm Still Waiting for a link to that "response/dirty tactic"

[rodeodance]

18. REC

[JPZenger]

19. Goldman Sacks is not a major subprime lender

Also, contributions from corporations are not allowed in any case.

OK, now let this sink.

[Maven]

27. They sell mortgage securities backed by subprime loans.

[Riley133]

73. It's Goldman SACHS. They have many investments, including oil. nt

[littlebit]

20. Wait for it........

Let it sink....:sarcasm:

[depakid]

22. Now THAT really is theater of the absurd

But, but... HE took more than me!

Of course, the key omission here is that the Clintons were directly responsible for the very deregulatory policies that led to this debacle in the first place!

(Not to mention Eron, Tyco, Worldcom scams).

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

30. Hillary was part of deregulating the sub primers?

not suprising.

[depakid]

42. The Clintons are basically a team

so I think it's fair to make the presumption that their policy positions are largely equivalent.

[bluedawg12]

87. No! The key factor here is what he does is not what he says.

That BO is different.

[Kittycat]

29. Do you have a legitimate, unbiased link?

Because we were looking at FEC reports by company the other day - and "Oracle" pops up with so many $$s. Some of that money is my husband's - it wasn't a Company contribution - it was a personal contribution, and as required by law, you must list your employer. :eyes:

So, until you can give some legit link showing otherwise, this entire story is bulls*t :)

[bluedawg12]

46. Here's a link and by sector as of 2-20-08 fbased on FEC

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sectors.asp?sec=F

All the numbers on this page are for the 2008 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released on Wednesday, February 20, 2008.

Finance/Insur/RealEst:
Clinton, Hillary
$16,939,471
Obama, Barack
$13,401,148

Health:
McCain, John
$7,356,133

Clinton, Hillary
$3,949,534

Obama, Barack
$3,210,449

Lawyers & Lobbyists
Clinton, Hillary
$14,067,757

Obama, Barack
$11,345,836

[Kittycat]

65. But again... This is derived from individual contribututions in many cases.

: The totals on these charts are calculated from PAC contributions and contributions from individuals giving more than $200, as reported to the Federal Election Commission. Individual contributions are generally categorized based on the donor's occupation/employer, although individuals may be classified instead as ideological donors if they've given more than $200 to an ideological PAC.

I might be going out on a limb here... But I wold venture to guess that great many contributors are employed, or their spouses are.

[FARAFIELD]

32. Boy you should learn your banking

None of those were subprime lenders. And ill give you one more goodie. the Term "subprime" crisis is a minsnomer, a supermajority of the loans defaulted are Prime loans, all those companies you listed are Prime Lenders, Damn. WHy did you type all that out and not even get your facts right.

[Texas Hill Country]

33. actually, all of them are the top ten issuers of "subprime" SIVs and Mortgage Backed Deriviatives,

if not the loans themselves.... but they do mostly do prime loans and other financial business.

[lark]

38. Prime lenders can still do subprime loans

Countrywide is the largest mortgage lender, but it started the subprime lending mess and has the most defaults.

[karynnj]

35. This is garbage - These are contributions from people working for these companies

Here is the totaled result:
Sen. Obama has taken more money from the top 10 issuers of subprime loans than Hillary. Sen. Obama has received $434,420 from the top 10 issuers of subprime loans. Hillary has received $364,950.

All it means is Obama raised more money here - as he did in total - Her campaign is near bankrupt as is her conscience for having this on her official site. This is DESPERATION.

[ProSense]

36. Total garbage, and it's coming from HillaryHub

She has nothing left!

[babylonsister]

43. More garbage, different. day. It does reek of desperation. nt

[joshcryer]

53. That's how *all* contributions are. The point is that Obama gets more, not Hillary.

It's a ridiculous charge, but what can you do either way. The point is Obama isn't as pure as some here are deluded.

[ProSense]

55. No the point is Hillary is mixing apples and oranges. She knows full well when money come from

an employee, lobbyist or PAC.

[jackson_dem]

54. Yeah--just like everyone else. You must also think McCain doesn't take corporate money

Since it comes from "individuals", much of it from executives and through bundling.

[karynnj]

71. Even executives are limited to $2,300 an election

Every candidate takes in contributions - even Edwards, though he did it get anywhere near as much - not out of virtue because he turned it down - he just didn't get it. The system is what it is. Some Senators, John Kerry, Paul Wellstone and Joe Biden all tried to get real campaign finance through - they got nowhere enough support from their peers.

Obama is the one that got the provision passed that would make public bundles given by lobbyists - and he takes no PAC money. In this, he is cleaner than HRC. HRC has also already had to major fund raising scandals in addition to those from 1996. (Note, Edwards also refused PAC and lobbyist money - but he never wrote a bill in the Senate on any issue related to this. This is not an issue he ever fought for in the Senate.

Here is what someone who fought with Wellstone for what has been considered the best of the bills to get big money out of politics.
This is where I am on money in politics:

"Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to speak before you today about a critical challenge before this Senate--the challenge of reforming the way in which elections are conducted in the United States; the challenge of ending the ``moneyocracy'' that has turned our elections into auctions where public office is sold to the highest bidder. I want to implore the Congress to take meaningful steps this year to ban soft money, strengthen the Federal Election Commission, provide candidates the opportunity to pay for their campaigns with clean money, end the growing trend of dangerous sham issue ads, and meet the ultimate goal of restoring the rights of average Americans to have a stake in their democracy. Today I am proud to join with my colleague from Minnesota, PAUL WELLSTONE, to introduce the ``Clean Money'' bill which I believe will help all of us entrusted to shape public policy to arrive at a point where we can truly say we are rebuilding Americans' faith in our democracy.
For the last 10 years, I have stood before you to push for comprehensive campaign reform. We have made nips and tucks at the edges of the system, but we have always found excuses to hold us back from making the system work. It's long past time that we act--in a comprehensive way--to curtail the way in which soft money and the big special interest dollars are crowding ordinary citizens out of this political system.
Today the political system is being corrupted because there is too much unregulated, misused money circulating in an environment where candidates will do anything to get elected and where, too often, the special interests set the tone of debate more than the political leaders or the American people. Just consider the facts for a moment. The rising cost of seeking political office is outrageous. In 1996, House and Senate candidates spent more than $765 million, a 76% increase since 1990 and a six fold increase since 1976. Since 1976, the average cost for a winning Senate race went from $600,000 to $3.3 million, and in the arms race for campaign dollars in 1996 many of us were forced to spend significantly more than that. In constant dollars, we have seen an increase of over 100 percent in the money spent for Senatorial races from 1980 to 1994. Today Senators often spend more time on the phone ``dialing for dollars'' than on the Senate floor. The average Senator must raise $12,000 a week for six years to pay for his or her re-election campaign.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg. The use of soft money has exploded. In 1988, Democrats and Republicans raised a combined $45 million in soft money. In 1992 that number doubled to reach $90 million and in 1995-96 that number tripled to $262 million. This trend continues in this cycle. What's the impact of all that soft money? It means that the special interests are being heard. They're the ones with the influence. But ordinary citizens can't compete. Fewer than one third of one percent of eligible voters donated more than $250 in the electoral cycle of 1996. They're on the sidelines in what is becoming a coin-operated political system.
The American people want us to act today to forge a better system. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 77% of the public believes that campaign finance reform is needed ``because there is too much money being spent on political campaigns, which leads to excessive influence by special interests and wealthy individuals at the expense of average people.'' Last spring a New York Times found that an astonishing 91% of the public favor a fundamental transformation of this system.
Cynics say that the American people don't care about campaign finance. It's not true. Citizens just don't believe we'll have the courage to act--they're fed up with our defense of the status quo. They're disturbed by our fear of moving away from this status quo which is destroying our democracy. Soft money, political experts tell us, is good for incumbents, good for those of us within the system already. Well, nothing can be good for any elected official that hurts our democracy, that drives citizens out of the process, and which keeps politicians glued to the phone raising money when they ought to be doing the people's business. Let's put aside the status quo, and let's act today to restore our democracy, to make it once more all that the founders promised it could be.
Let us pass the Clean Mo ney Bill to restore faith in our government in this age when it has been so badly eroded.
Let us recognize that the faith in government and in our political process which leads Americans to go to town hall meetings, or to attend local caucuses, or even to vote--that faith which makes political expression worthwhile for ordinary working Americans--is being threatened by a political system that appears to reward the special interests that can play the game and the politicians who can game the system.
Each time we have debated campaign finance reform in this Senate, too many of our colleagues have safeguarded the status quo under the guise of protecting the political speech of the Fortune 500. But today we must pass campaign finance reform to protect the political voice of the 250 million ordinary, working Americans without a fortune. It is their dwindling faith in our political system that must be restored.
Twenty five years ago, I sat before the Foreign Relations Committee, a young veteran having returned from Vietnam. Behind me sat hundreds of veterans committed to ending the war the Vietnam War. Even then we questioned whether ordinary Americans, battle scarred veterans, could have a voice in a political system where the costs of campaigns, the price of elected office seemed prohibitive. Young men who had put their life on the front lines for their country were worried that the wall of special interests between the people and their government might have been too thick even then for our voices to be heard in the corridors of power in Washington, D.C.
But we had a reserve of faith left, some belief in the promise and the influence of political expression for all Americans. That sliver of faith saved lives. Ordinary citizens stopped a war that had taken 59,000 American lives.
Every time in the history of this republic when we have faced a moral challenge, there has been enough faith in our democracy to stir the passions of ordinary Americans to act--to write to their Members of Congress; to come to Washington and speak with us one on one; to walk door to door on behalf of issues and candidates; and to vote on election day for people they believe will fight for them in Washington.
It's the activism of citizens in our democracy that has made the American experiment a success. Ordinary citizens--at the most critical moments in our history--were filled with a sense of efficacy. They believed they had influence in their government.

Today those same citizens are turning away from our political system. They believe the only kind of influence left in American politics is the kind you wield with a checkbook. The senior citizen living on a social security check knows her influence is inconsequential compared to the interest group that can saturate a media market with a million dollars in ads that play fast and loose with the facts. The mother struggling to find decent health care for her children knows her influence is trivial compared to the special interests on K Street that can deliver contributions to incumbent politicians struggling to stay in office.
But I would remind you that whenever our country faces a challenge, it is not the special interests, but rather the average citizen, who holds the responsibility to protect our nation. The next time our nation faces a crisis and the people's voice needs to be heard to turn the tide of history, will the average American believe enough in the process to give words to the feelings beyond the beltway, the currents of public opinion that run beneath the surface of our political dialogue?
In times of real challenge for our country in the years to come, will the young people speak up once again? Not if we continue to hand over control of our political system to the special interests who can infuse the system with soft money and with phony television ads that make a mockery of the issues.
The children of the generation that fought to lower the voting age to 18 are abandoning the voting booth themselves. Polls reveal they believe it is more likely that they'll be abducted by aliens than it is that their vote will make a real difference. For America's young people the MTV Voter Participation Challenge ``Choose or Lose'' has become a cynical joke. In their minds, the choice has already been lost--lost to the special interests. That is a loss this Senate should take very seriously. That is tremendous damage done to our democracy, damage we have a responsibility in this Senate to repair. Mr. President, with this legislation we are introducing today, we can begin that effort--we can repair and revitalize our political process, and we can guarantee ``clean elections'' funded by ``clean money,'' elections where our citizens are the ones who make the difference"

[pointsoflight]

39. Link showing these are COMPANY contributions and not individual contributions?

Do you have the company SEC reports? Because otherwise, this is total B.S. Those numbers could simply reflect contributions from employees of those companies, all the way down to the bank tellers and janitorial staff.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

63. They have to be individuals because companies cannot donate to a specific candidate

Those figures could be anything from bigtime bundlers getting the max out of several individuals, or they could simply be regular old people donating $100 on the website. You have to disclose your employer for any contribution, that's why these figures are so misleading.

[rAVES]

41. lol... big difference there... they both took money..

its sucks though.. both Democrats taking this money is sick.

[ileus]

45. and your point would be??? Obama is to blame for the mortgage crisis???

[bluedawg12]

47. Speaking of Obama and the mortgage crisis links>

http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/theoryb/node/1306

Obama’s Pledge to “Fine Unscrupulous Lenders”
Submitted by Sun Yu on September 8, 2007 - 9:26pm.
Barack Obama’s grassroots campaign is starting to pay off. The Financial Times reported that the Illinois Senator has raised money from 100,000 donors, more than any candidate of either party. As if to reiterate his commitment to the poor, Mr. Obama launched the most radical proposal ever last week in resolving the sub-prime mortgage crisis. In an article on August 28’s FT, the democratic presidential candidate wrote:

“One way to protect innocent homeowners – at least until this crisis passes – is to establish a fund to help people refinance or sell to avoid foreclosure. We can partially pay for this fund by imposing penalties on lenders that acted irresponsibly or committed fraud.”

However, a deeper look into Obama’s funding sources may cast his promise into doubt. Despite his popularity among grassroots, he is relying more on hedge funds and investment banks to keep him at the head of the money primary. He has taken $311,228 from Goldman Sachs, more than doubling the $134,050 received by Hilary Clinton, according to Opensecrets, an NGO. He ranks No. 1 among candidates in both parties in raising money from securities industry, which has been widely accused of causing the mortgage crisis. Obama’s largest source of funding, therefore, comes exactly from the industry he has sharply criticized and vowed to discipline.




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/if-obamas-for-real-on-th_b_89159.html

Earl Ofari Hutchinson
February 29, 2008
If Obama's For Real on the Sub-Prime Crisis, He'll Dump His Campaign Finance Chair

Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama says he'll crack down on fraudulent sub-prime lenders. If he really means it he can start by firing his campaign finance chair, Penny Pritzker. Before taking over Obama's campaign finances, she headed up the borderline shady and failed Superior Bank. It collapsed in 2002. The bank's sordid story and its abominable role in fueling the sub-prime crisis are well known and documented. It engaged in deceptive and faulty lending, questionable accounting practices, and charged hidden fees. It did it with the sleepy-eyed see-no-evil oversight of federal. It made thousands of dubious loans to mostly poor, strapped homeowners. A disproportionate number of them were minority.

snip
the sub-prime fall-out was far higher in the predominantly black and Latino neighborhoods of South and Southwest Chicago.

snip

Print
Buzz up!on Yahoo!The predictable happened when many of those lost their homes. When the bank collapsed Pritzker and bank officials skipped away with their profits and reputations intact. Aside from the financial and personal misery sub prime lenders caused the thousands of distressed homeowners, sub-prime lending has been a major cause of the housing crisis in many areas, and has dealt a sledgehammer blow to the economy. Obama has said nothing about Pritzker, Superior Bank, or their dubious practices.

[bluedawg12]

52. Speaking about concrns about financial regulations & donations>>

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032108P.shtml

Clinton, Obama Are Wall Street Darlings
By Janet Hook and Dan Morain
The Los Angeles Times

Friday 21 March 2008

"Donations to Democratic campaigns prompt concern that the candidates will go soft on regulation of the financial markets.

The flow of campaign cash is a measure of how open-fisted banks and other financial institutions have been to politicians of both parties. Concern is rising that "no matter who the Democratic nominee is and who wins in November, Wall Street will have a friend in the White House," said Massie Ritsch of the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign donations. "The door will be open to these big banks."

Sen. McCain of Arizona got off to a slow start in presidential campaign fundraising. Having clinched the Republican nomination, he could gain momentum in attracting Wall Street money.

For now, though, Sen. Clinton of New York is leading the way, bringing in at least $6.29 million from the securities and investment industry, compared with $6.03 million for Sen. Obama of Illinois and $2.59 million for McCain, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Those figures include donations from the investment companies' employees and political action committees.

Citigroup, the nation's largest banking company, also was among those enmeshed in the sub-prime mortgage debacle, leading to billions of dollars in losses last year and the resignation of its chief executive, Charles Prince.

Merrill Lynch too had multibillion-dollar losses last year, mostly involving soured mortgage-related investments. Merrill Chief Executive Stanley O'Neal, an Obama donor, also was forced out last year.

Overall, Citigroup and Merrill employees have given $519,000 to Clinton, $386,200 to McCain and $354,000 to Obama since January 2007.
In a statement, the Obama campaign said the candidate had sought to reduce "the influence of special interests over the legislative process." As a presidential candidate, the statement notes, Obama does not take donations from political action committees. He did, however, accept PAC money from Citigroup and others for his past campaigns.
"

[rodeodance]

61. You either did not read the OP or you can not comprehend it.

[skater314159]

64. False dilemma. nt

[chocome]

56. MSNBC Video: Clinton on the economy

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23783565#23779982

[Kurovski]

58. Goddam that asshole I'm voting for!

Just...just...goddam him all to heck!

[johnnydrama]

59. garbage in, garbage out

Do you have proof that all these donations didn't come from the bottom 10% of the wage earners at these companies?

You do know that actual people work for the companies? Maintenance people, human resources, receptionists, etc...

Show me proof that it was the CEO's that were responsible for the donations.

[bluedawg12]

70. Of course it was a mass workers movement

at Citbibank and the Hedge Funds.

Because if it's one thing investment bankers are known for it's mobilizing the workers and motivating them to donate to a candidate.

You betcha!

Of course these folks would not want to donate on their own- they would happily bundle their hard earned dollars and donate to Obama--while, in your scenario, ONLY the big bosses from those same organizations would donate to Hilary????

Really?

:rofl:

http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/theoryb/node/1306
"Despite his popularity among grassroots, he is relying more on hedge funds and investment banks to keep him at the head of the money primary. He has taken $311,228 from Goldman Sachs, more than doubling the $134,050 received by Hilary Clinton, according to Opensecrets, an NGO"

[johnnydrama]

86. give me the names and positions

of the people at Citibank that donated to Obama?

[Perky]

67. THIS IS UTTERLY MORONIC.. WOULD SOMEON PLEASE READ THE ELECTION LAW!!!

Corporation can only give money through PACs ANd OBAMA is not taking PAC money.

These contributions are from individuals who wourk for these corporation in any number of capacities.


They could be Janitors or Telemarketers ,,, The could be Mortagage Banks or Database Analysts They COuld be CEOo or bank tellers. THey have chose to identify the company they work for..... That is all there is to this. NOTHING MORE and NOTHING LESS.


GET A FRIGGING CLUE MORONS.

[bluedawg12]

76. Larger caps please perky your shouting is drowning out your writing!

thank you-

carry one. :rofl:

[bluedawg12]

78. PACs and Lobbyists Aided Obama’s Rise

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/09/3074/

“The people in this stadium need to know who we’re going to fight for,” Obama said at Soldier Field. “The reason that I’m running for president is because of you, not because of folks who are writing big checks, and that’s a clear message that has to be sent, I think, by every candidate.”

But behind Obama’s campaign rhetoric about taking on special interests lies a more complicated truth. A Globe review of Obama’s campaign finance records shows that he collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists and PACs as a state legislator in Illinois, a US senator, and a presidential aspirant.

In Obama’s eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns — $296,000 of $461,000 — came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial services firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show.

Obama’s US Senate campaign committee, starting with his successful run in 2004, has collected $128,000 from lobbyists and $1.3 million from PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics. His $1.3 million from PACs represents 8 percent of what he has raised overall. Clinton’s Senate committee, by comparison, has raised $3 million from PACs, 4 percent of her total amount raised, the group said.

In addition, Obama’s own federal PAC, Hopefund, took in $115,000 from 56 PACs in the 2005-2006 election cycle out of $4.4 million the PAC raised, according to CQ MoneyLine, which collects Federal Election Commission data. Obama then used those PAC contributions — including thousands from defense contractors, law firms, and the securities and insurance industries — to build support for his presidential run by making donations to Democratic Party organizations and candidates around the country.

Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that after seeing the influence of lobbyists firsthand during his two years in Washington, Obama decided before he entered the presidential race that he would take a different approach to fund-raising than he had in the past.

“He’s leading by example and taking steps that he feels need to be taken on the national stage to clean up the undue influence of Washington lobbyists on the policies and priorities of Washington,” Psaki said. “His leadership on this issue is an evolving process.”

Though Obama has returned thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from registered federal lobbyists since he declared his candidacy in February, his presidential campaign has maintained ties with lobbyists and lobbying firms to help raise some of the $58.9 million he collected through the first six months of 2007. Obama has raised more than $1.4 million from members of law and consultancy firms led by partners who are lobbyists, The Los Angeles Times reported last week. And The Hill, a Washington newspaper, reported earlier this year that Obama’s campaign had reached out to lobbyists’ networks to use their contacts to help build his fund-raising base.

This activity, along with Obama’s past contributions from lobbyists and PACs, has drawn fire from opposing campaigns. Some political analysts say Obama, by casting himself as an uncorrupted good-government crusader, has set himself up for charges of hypocrisy.

“If you’re running a campaign about credibility, that credibility and persona are so important you better be squeaky clean,” said Richard Semiatin, a political scientist at American University. “While he’s getting good traction out of this, I think in the long term he’s really got to be careful"

[bluedawg12]

80. Turns out, some Obama PAC money came from PACs

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/11/oops-1.html


"Before he ostentatiously stopped taking money from political action committees to run for president, Sen. Barack Obama quietly took money from political action committees.

As a presidential candidate, Obama claims to be an outsider eager to shake up the Washington establishment by refusing to accept donations from political action committees and Washington lobbyists. This year, they're the bad guys.

But this wasn’t always the case.

Back in 2005 and 2006, Obama raised $123,283 from other political action committees and put them into a political action committee of his own. He called it Hopefund.

Hopefund is what is known as a “leadership PAC,” a frequent target of campaign watchdogs because it can raise money in much larger bundles than individual candidates. The Candidate of Hope from Illinois followed the example set by Senate and House members who establish such accounts to raise money and then spread it around to other politicians in the hopes of gaining new best friends. Legally, such PACs are supposed to operate independently and cannot coordinate with any campaigns of their owner.

Now that Obama is running for president, he's handing out the bulk of Hopefund money to politicians and groups who happen to be in early presidential voting states, as the Washington Post's John Solomon noted the other day. The pace of giving has increased in recent months and this has led to some remarkable coincidences.

New Hampshire state Sen. Jacalyn Cilley, for instance, received $1,000 from Obama's PAC last summer. Six days later she happened to endorse the same Obama for president. "I endorsed him because I believe in him and his policies," she said.

Likewise, Obama's PAC recently felt moved to donate $9,000 to Rep. Paul Hodes, who happens to have been the first member of Congress from New Hampshire to endorse Obama early this year.

With a straight face Obama spokesmen deny there's any connection between his...

presidential campaign and the PAC donations. "Sen. Obama has long been doing whatever he can to help elect fellow Democrats all across the country," said Joshua Earnest."

[Perky]

90. YES THEY DID< BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THE OP SAID.

Corporations do not .give money to Presidential campaigns. And it is imbelice to keep repeating the same unard every week. Obama is not taking money from PACs or Lobbyist

[DerekJ]

68. You know what...

All Hillary supporters are trying to do is tell Obama supporters that your candidate is just as bad as ours.

What a logic to support HRC to begin with.

[AmericanUnity]

69. OBAMA HAD A SUMMIT PLAN A YEAR AGO!! HA. HSU, PETER PAUL (felon who illegally raised $1.5 mil), et

You're so gullible

[DrFunkenstein]

74. I Cover The Mortgage Industry and They Either Don't Know What They Are Talking About Or

Are willfully misrepresenting the case.

Almost all of the companies listed DO NOT originate mortgages. They INVESTED, however unwisely, in subprime mortgages on the secondary market. A major exception is Countrywide, which actually gave more ($11,750) to the Clinton campaign.

I will get the latest statistics for the fourth quarter, but I can tell you that as of the third quarter 2007, real estate industry contributors gave $3.94 million to the Clinton campaign and $2.3 million to Obama, according to The Center for Responsive Politics.

What is it about the Clinton camp and the truth? Can't they handle it?

[bluedawg12]

82. Of course they did not orignate subprime mortagages mess because

that wasn't the sole problem.

It was bundling the notes and selling them as packages, and the originators thought they were divesting themselves of risk.

But the sub prime mess has to do with the loan originators and those who bought the paper in a secondary and tertiary market.

[GoldieAZ49]

75. hmmm, so they lose their homes but get Obama?

I would rather keep my home, thanks

With all of O's money, why would he send it back and asked them to work with the lowest income homeowner?

[Riley133]

81. A great article which details Obama's funding

and will hopefully answer some of those pesky questions:

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obamas_lobbyist_line.php

[Auntie Bush]

83. Kick...so it won't sink!

[AX10]

84. Let it sink. Oh, wait, that makes it rise.

Obamaland is strange.
Obama is a political type. Nothing special about him.

[bluedawg12]

85. Sinkibank...I mean Citibank $$ to BO in 2008 in deep w/sub prime

Citigroup Inc’s PAC donated to Obama -relevance?

Citigroup Inc’s PAC donated $247,436 to Obama in 2008

What’s the relevance?

http://www.innercitypress.org/citi.html

“Citigroup, formed by the 1998 merger of Travelers and Citicorp, is the largest U.S.-based bank holding company. It engages in questionable high interest rate lending in low income communities across the United States, and now globally, through its CitiFinancial unit. Though its investment bank, Citigroup underwrites and trades in pools of loans issued by other predatory lenders. It has assisted Enron, WorldCom, and others; it has settled a slew of securities charges on the cheap. Citigroup finances and is involved in such environmentally destructive projects, including as a purchaser, despite contrary claims and its surreal inaccurate advertisements. Citigroup is nearly the definition of "predator;" this is the Citigroup Watch.

Update of March 24, 2008: The Ohio Civil Rights Commission has ruled there is evidence that Argent Mortgage, which Citigroup has bought and now owns, discriminated against African Americans by targeting them with predatory home loans.”

Update of March 10, 2008: The ACJ notes that in September, Citigroup bought the assets of the mortgage servicing company owned by Ameriquest's parent, ACC Capital Holdings. It also bought the assets of Argent Mortgage. That deal gave Citigroup the servicing rights for the Andronicas' mortgage and $45 billion in other loans..

Update of February 11, 2008: While reportedly looking to sell off its subprime in the UK, CitiFinancial is still looking to put down more tentacles in the U.S. and India

Update of January 14, 2008: There's a hole in Citigroup's January 8 memo announcing a consolidated "end-to-end U.S. residential mortgage business" including origination, servicing, and securitization operations, with Bill Beckmann reporting to Carl Levinson and Jamie Forese -- CitiFinancial, Citibank, and Smith Barney would continue to originate mortgages separately. CitiFinancial is a subprime unit, one with most risk, for some reason not included. Meanwhile, the consolidated unit will, according to Citi's Jeff Perlowitz, "be a nonconforming shop." Great...

Update of December 24, 2007: Citi's real advocacy -- The American Financial Services Association, one of the hardest-nosed subprime trade groups, said Thursday that it has named Elvis Goddard of Citifinancial as the chairman of the advisory board of its mortgage lending division. etc.etc.etc.,”

Si se puede!

[AX10]

94. This should be made into it's own post.

[bluedawg12]

88. Lobbyists ran Obama's S.C. campaign

Obama has disavowed:
The lobbyists- except on his payroll
Preadtory lenders- except in his campaign adivsory staff
Boneheaded Rezko mistake.
and more.......

But: Clinton recalls Bosnia trip as dangerous OH! noooooooooooooooooooooooo..........!


http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/president/14014886.html
Last update: January 22, 2008 - 11:02 PM

"examining The facts
The lobbyists? Obama's campaign said this month that former South Carolina Gov. Jim Hodges had become a national co-chairman. Hodges' lobbying and consulting firm is registered to lobby for Hillenbrand Partners, a Chicago-based company that does business with the Federal Home Loan Bank in Atlanta. Two other South Carolina leaders in Obama's campaign have lobbied in the state. Senior adviser Rick Wade said he last lobbied in 1996. Anton Gunn, Obama's state political director, was a registered lobbyist from 2001 to 2004, state Ethics Commission records said.

Volunteers vs. paid staff: Adviser Steve Hildebrand said the campaign has no problem with lobbyists volunteering to work, but no federal lobbyists are on the campaign's payroll and they cannot donate money or collect it. For instance, Hildebrand said he gave up federal lobbying work for an environmental group as a condition of taking his paid staff position.

Donations from PACs: When he was an Illinois state senator, about 40 percent of Obama's campaign cash came from political action committees, corporations and unions. He has since sworn off taking money from Washington lobbyists and PACs. "We've never walked away from that. He's said it's time to change that," Hildebrand said."

[anonymous171]

89. straight from hillaryhub. gb2 that other forum.

[casus belli]

91. And here is where your "facts" turn into a lie.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

$250 in PAC money and $3000 in corporate contributions - meaning all of the donations you mention came from INDIVIDUALS donating $2300 or less. But nice try.

[bluedawg12]

93. Again with the janitors and receptionists at PAC's donating money?

Oh yeah, the regular folk at these places all chipped in through the Corporate PAC to donate?

A PAC is a PAC is a PAC.

Goldman Sachs $474,428
Ubs Ag $298,180
JP Morgan Chase & Co $282,387
Lehman Brothers $274,147
National Amusements Inc $265,750
Sidley Austin LLP $251,657
Citigroup Inc $247,436
University of California $239,944
Skadden, Arps et al $228,520
Exelon Corp $226,661
Harvard University $225,891
Jones Day $213,825
Google Inc $192,808
Time Warner $190,091
Morgan Stanley $190,026
Citadel Investment Group $173,950
Kirkland & Ellis $163,126
Latham & Watkins $160,842
WilmerHale LLP $155,788
Jenner & Block $151,447


http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

This was a year ago, before the 2008 donation list came out:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/democratic_candidates_debate.html

Money from Lobbyists

>>Obama also said he's taking no money from "federal registered lobbyists," while failing to mention that he does accept funds from their spouses, children and partners, and that several ex-lobbyists are raising money for him.


Obama: I have not taken money from federal registered lobbyists. We're not taking money from PACs. What we are doing is organizing ordinary people to do extraordinary things all across the country. And that's what it's going to require in order to change politics in this country.

It’s true that Obama hasn’t accepted any money from political action committees. And spokesman Bill Burton told The Associated Press that the campaign has returned $50,566 from 49 donors whom it had identified as lobbyists.
Nevertheless, Obama accepts money from lobbyists’ spouses and other family members, their partners at the law firms where they work if the partners aren’t registered to lobby, senior executives at companies that hire lobbyists, and state-level lobbyists. Among his top fundraisers are at least a few who were registered lobbyists as recently as last year, such as Alan Solomont, who says he withdrew his registration as soon as he signed on to raise money for Obama. The campaign says it is making a "best effort" to stay away from tainted money. "It isn’t a perfect solution to the problem and it isn’t even a perfect symbol,” spokesman Burton has said.<<

[berni_mccoy]

95. You are a moron who can not read. Obama has received a total of $250 from PAC's

in the 2008 election cycle: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

This includes the contributions you linked to on Open Secrets.

That means the "top contributors" from your list are bundles of individual donations from people who work at those companies. From THE PAGE YOU LINKED TO:
"This chart lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families."

Given that Obama received only $250 from PACs, that means 99.999% of this money came from INDIVIDUALS.

Now STFU.

[guruoo]

96. K&R