Obama now getting far more corporate money than any other candidate

[jackson_dem]

Obama=change that both corporate America and the "netroots" can believe in? Someone is getting hoodwinked and bambozooled. I know who my money is on...

-snip-

While he has trumpeted his broad base of small-dollar Internet donors, recent campaign-finance documents show he is also drawing bigger checks from corporate contributors. Through the first three months of the year, employees of nine major industries -- from communications and defense to transportation and Wall Street -- gave the majority of their donations to the Illinois senator over rival Hillary Clinton.

-snip-

The swing in big checks from employees of big industries helps explain Sen. Obama's continued lead over Sen. Clinton in money, even as she has registered some of her best fund-raising months of the campaign through a surge in her own Internet donors.

But the new industry figures could also undermine one of Sen. Obama's campaign's core messages: his independence from special interests. At a recent campaign stop in Indiana, which holds a primary Tuesday, Sen. Clinton told a rally: "He took more money from oil-company executives than any candidate."

-snip-

Sen. Obama retook the lead in the defense sector in March. Overall in 2008, Sen. Obama has raised more than Sen. Clinton among defense employees.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120977495306264221.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[Fearless]

1. Well Clinton's corps are all tapped out. What did you think would happen?

[Mezzo]

37. I thought OBama was for the little guy/ don't say we didn't warn you...

[Radical Activist]

65. We already know who Mrs. Walmart Board/NAFTA fake stands for so

at least we have a chance with Obama.

[Hawkeye-X]

2. It's still illegal for people to receive corporate cash from corporates.

So you're claiming that coporate fatcats has donated in behalf of Obama, when in fact it's probably the little people (or underlings) have donated little money to Obama which he can always go back and ask for more - Hillary's fatcats are in fact tapped out.

So please, try another new, and useless argument.

Hawkeye-X

[tabatha]

3. I don't believe they can accept contributions from corporations.

These are donations from employees working at those firms.

At our company, employees pooled to play Lotto - does that mean that the company was playing Lotto.

Also, if you add 2007 and 2008, Clinton is probably still ahead.

[jackson_dem]

9. Neither can Clinton but that didn't stop Obama supporters from claiming she is a corporate candidate

[polpilot]

66. One Hundred and Nine Million $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[iamthebandfanman]

4. couldnt be because hillary failed to get the nomination

so now they are giving money to the person who did...

nah, that couldnt be it.

[jackson_dem]

10. McSame won. Why is Obama raising far more than him?

Face it netroots: you've been hoodwinked and bambozooled...

[iamthebandfanman]

17. oh, im sure we have been

in whatever reality it is that you live in.

but hey, if it keeps ya from killin' urself because hillary lost the nomination over a month ago and youve wasted all that money donating to her... so be it ;)

oh, and p.s.
keep up the activist/grassroots bashing... itll get ya real far around here!

[jackson_dem]

21. You have been fooled if you think Obama isn't a corporate candidate

[uponit7771]

25. Yeah, with an average donation of 96$ those CEOs must love him :rolleyes:

[iamthebandfanman]

29. oh, i think they both are

but to what degree and what lobbyist is a whole nother story.

but hey, i dont live in a perfect world where we coulda nominated a TRUE LIBERAL instead of these moderate conservatives we have for choices.

what can ya do ?

pretty sad that not only do i have the choice of voting for the least of two evils in the GE , but now i have to do it in the primary as well.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

5. Translation: Obama now getting more money from people who have jobs

Since your chart doesn't break down who in each company gave to each candidate, it really doesn't tell you much. A mail room clerk would count for just as much on that chart as the CEO of the company.

[jackson_dem]

13. Mail room clerks don't dole out $2,300 a pop...

It is funny to watch Obamites flip flop on this. When Clinton was ahead they cited these numbers as evidence of her being a corporate candidate. Now Obama, who was never far behind her in the first place among corporations, is trouncing her and even McSame and they think it is because the corporations believe in "hope and change" now...

[NotThisTime]

31. Bankers do, telecom workers do, lawyers do, doctors do

any number of workers do

They aren't federal lobbyist's or Pac's

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

41. Which is why Hillary's money has dried up and Obama's hasn't

Obama's donors have given an average of around $110 each. Hillary is the one getting money from the fat cats.

[tabatha]

70. I thought the claim was about PACS and Lobbyists.

Where are those listed?

[Doug.Goodall]

6. The winner is receiving the support. Who wants to support a loser like Hillary?

[VotesForWomen]

59. even if O is 'the winner,' why would corporations throw away money on a guy who won't do anything fo

for them? yeah.

[rodeodance]

7. Old time politics--that is Obama. He is a lying PHONY

.........
But the new industry figures could also undermine one of Sen. Obama's campaign's core messages: his independence from special interests. At a recent campaign stop in Indiana, which holds a primary Tuesday, Sen. Clinton told a rally: "He took more money from oil-company executives than any candidate."

[WeDidIt]

8. Corporations CANNOT donate to presidential candidates

If you are a teller in a bank and donated $50 to Obama, you're part of that Finance bar.

If you are a cable guy installing cable boxes and you donated $25 to Obama, you're part of that communications bar.

You get the picture.

[jackson_dem]

14. And? They can't directly give to Clinton either yet Obamites call her a corporate candidate

[WeDidIt]

18. Corporations are free to donate to Presidential Libraries and

to Foundations.

[uponit7771]

22. Because she takes lobbyist and PAC money!!! It's easy, pay attention please

[Kittycat]

68. HillFans don't understand reality, math or donation rules very well.

[lojasmo]

11. "employees of major industries" does not equal 'corporate money'

You clinton people aren't good at mathematics OR persuasive argument.

[ecdab]

12. Oh my god - people with jobs are giving money to Obama! Call the press,

sound the alarms!

DU doesn't stand for Dumb Underground - just so you know.

[jackson_dem]

16. No but there are a lot of suckers here who think Clinton is a corporate candidate and Obama isn't

[ecdab]

23. So why don't you post something relevant to the case you are trying

to make, as opposed to making this thread?

[jackson_dem]

27. Corporate money speaks for itself. They know Obama is also a corporate candidate

Even if the netroots has been hoodwinked.

[uponit7771]

32. There are rich people who can afford to give 2600 dollars to Obama and Clinton and there are other

...rich people who can gather up said donors.

I don't mind that and don't call it "corporate either".

The MsM and CLintons spin on Obama's fundraising is a tell tale that there is fear in the air

[ecdab]

42. Uh huh - I work for a company, just like a lot of people. I show up on these lists

[tabatha]

71. PACS LOBBYISTS !!!!!

[iamthebandfanman]

26. probably because

she doesnt campaign on changing how washington DC works.. which is by big corporate special interest money thru lobbyist.
she doesnt because shes just fine with how it works, and why wouldnt she be.

[uponit7771]

15. It's illegal for corporations to donate to a campaign, the OP title is damn lie

[Donkeykick]

19. It's called butt kissing.

Can't you feel these people tremble? Same thing when Hillary got donations from the health industries. They're crying that the GOP won't be there for them in 2009. :nopity: :rofl:

[Skidmore]

20. I do believe the light blue line is labeled "Clinton."

I could be wrong though. Just stating the obvious.

[jackson_dem]

24. She is a corporate candidate. I am not a cultist who views her as a messiah

[uponit7771]

28. That's good, but I see it as more of the same and anyone willing to do SOMETHING different in...

...Washington has my vote

[emilyg]

46. There will be nothing new in Washington.

[uponit7771]

54. A black guy in the White House = no change at all? jus askin....thx

[emilyg]

62. Neither one of them will change anything much.

[Skidmore]

36. Coulda fooled me.

You sound pretty besotted.

[1776Forever]

30. Ah - It says EMPLOYEES of major companies - HELLO - NOT CORPORATIONS!

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.asp?cid=N00009638

Obama:

Individual contributions

$14,816,448 (90.5%)

[uponit7771]

33. The fear is evident, Obama doesn't need PAC or Lobbyist money to win and doesn't even

...need the big money donors either if the primary donations get to 2 million donors.

2 million * 25$ = 50 million a month = GOP and MsM sKeered

[blm]

34. NOW the corporatists who tapped out on Clinton are ADMITTING Obama won. Cool, eh?

.

[Celebration]

35. It's PAC money that he won't take--he'll take money from EMPLOYEES n/t

[Two Americas]

40. that is how the game is played

People are making an artificial distinction here. It is more show than substance.

[Celebration]

76. So he's not supposed to take donations from employed people?

Give me a break.

There is no way to mount a campaign if he only takes money from the unemployed.

[Two Americas]

77. that makes no sense

How do you get that from what I said?

[ProSense]

38. This is actually good news, more individual donations for Obama.

Obama

Hillary

Hillary's PACs appear to be tapped out.

[pointsoflight]

39. You're such a fucking liar.

Post after post after post, you do everything you can to misrepresent reality. That graph says "employees" you fucking moron, not corporations.

[uponit7771]

43. THey're histerical, the can't tell the difference

[ecdab]

44. Distortion - it is the nature of Clinton's campaign.

She does take lobbyist money and doesn't want to change the system. So how does she try and take away a positive issue for Obama - with a bunch of negative distortions. It like the IWR and her gas tax holiday. She isn't about change, she's about winning - and she can not beat Obama on the issues, so she distorts the heck out of them and hopes people are lazy enough not to check. It's old school politics - it's Hillary as usual.

[jackson_dem]

48. Yeah--this was exactly the case when Obamites "fucking lied" about Clinton's "corporate money"

[uponit7771]

55. So she does NOT take PAC or Lobbyist money?

[Hansel]

45. I work in the banking industry and donated to Obama

And I think Mortgages need to have more regulations and the credit card laws need a major overhaul because companies that issue credit cards act like loan sharks. Both of these are positions that my employer is surely against. And I'm pretty sure our PAC is not donating to Obama.

He has nearly 1.5 million donors so it's not surprising that he gets lots of donations from people who work in corporations.

People have to work somewhere.

[ecdab]

47. The OP can type, so he/she can read - the OP is just being dishonest

- simple as that.

[Fabio]

49. duh, Obama also getting much more in total than any other candidate

[bowens43]

50. MOre evidence that they believe Obama has the nomination wrapped up!! Thanks for the good news!!

[rodeodance]

51. this shows that Obama is a phony!!

[uponit7771]

57. You got proof he's taking PAC or Lobbyist money? I work at a bank

[rodeodance]

52. Error: You've already recommended that thread.

[Rabrrrrrr]

53. What? You mean, there's correlation between people voting for Obama and supporting him with money?

How fucking odd is that!!

:eyes:

Stop lying, by the way - as others have pointed out, it's not corporate money. It's money from individuals, and that chart happens to be broken down by field of employment of the donors.

Calling it "corporate money" is as utterly ignorant as drinking from your colostomy bag.

There's probably a pretty good bet that if you look at every election of the last 220 years, that the frontrunners - the ones receiving the most votes - are the ones who received the most donations. It's just simple logic. Stands to reason that if someone is voting for a candidate, they're not going to financially support a different one.

Better get a bigger colostomy bag, because you're gonna be drinking a lot if you keep looking at the world with your kind of ignorant logic and lying bloviations.

[tammywammy]

56. good post

:)

[VotesForWomen]

58. no, it can't be; Obama's "different." heh. nt

[McCamy Taylor]

60. Obama camp hypocrisy: same $$$ is "corporate" if Hillary gets it, "employee" if Obama gets it.

Can the Obama supporters at DU not see that you, the supporters are the very worst representatives of your own candidate?

Last fall, you insisted that Hillary was the "corporate candidate" because employees of the health care industry gave her more money--to which Obama supporters responded that meant she would be biased in her approach to health care. Now you claim that Obama is just getting contributions from "employees" of the health care industry because everyone knows that corporations can not give money...

Well guys, corporations could not give money last year when you were claiming that Hillary was the corporate candidate.

Do you think that the other people posting at DU have the attention span of house flies?

Do you think that we do not remember what you were saying yesterday?

Do you think that we can not look at one post that says "Hillary is the corporate candidate" and another that says "Obama gets contributions from employees" and see the double standard here?

I realize that politics in America is sometimes run on the "A sucker is born every minute" theory, but spare other DU posters the insult, please. And while you are at it, do not assume that everyone who is unemployed in America or who lives under the burden of poverty is unintelligent. Many people who are alienated from the system are better able to discern government and political and MSM bullshit than those who lived all their lives in privilege and safety.

[McCamy Taylor]

61. The "lie" that Obama is not corporate hurts the truly not corporate like Edwards and Dennis

who ran on a fraction of what Obama could raise with his lobbyist contacts and his corporate friends raising soft money for him. Obama was able to suck up the votes that people like Edwards and Dennis should have had by boasting that he too did not take lobbyists' money--and yet if you were a big multinational company with a DC lobbying group all you had to do was send the money through a state capital lobby like one in Sacramento and Obama would take it. Never mind that a lobbyist in Sacramento had no reason to be pouring money into a presidential campaign.

This gave Obama as unfair advantage against both Dennis and Edwards. He was able to crowd them out with all his corporate money while boasting that he was not corporate.

Clinton never lied. She presented herself as what she was. If anyone did not want a corporate candidate, they were free to choose another Dem.

Obama tried to take that choice away.

[cliffordu]

63. Another specious post from a paid employee.....

[McCamy Taylor]

67. Excuse me, who are you calling a paid employee and of whom?

And would you please cite your proof for saying that someone who posts on DU is being paid by someone else to post here?

If it is fair to accuse people of being paid to post here because one suspects that this is the case, then I could form some educated arguments about a number of posters based upon their habits.

I will check back for your answer.

[cliffordu]

74. Hmm. How about searching for the other

fact-free posts of this individual??

Just look for specious bullshit dressed up like the current missive.

There are three, maybe four individuals who post the same kinds of 'stuff' towards Obama with an AMAZING regularity and the same talking points, as though they were reading from scripts produced by political operatives.....

Who knows? Perhaps the people in question are simply hateful amateurs bent on getting all that vituperation out of their souls. If that's the case then I am wrong and they would have my apology.

But I gotta say, a LOT of the writing has the fine patina of crap in the corners that writing has when it is one generation down from original work...

At this late date the kind of stuff in this OP is just production level hatred. Propaganda.

Does the author think they are engaged in the good fight by producing such drivel? Do they think they are going to change anyones mind?? Where is the upside, politically OR emotionally from what amounts to little more than character assassination?

It smacks of production work. Like the sad reports bureaucrats shoved at me when I worked at Grants Management.


But like I said, I could be wrong.

Unlike the author of the piece in question at least I can admit it.

By the way - I disagree with your point of view a lot of the time, but your work is obviously original, and I respect that.

:patriot:

[Radical Activist]

64. Many corporations give to whoever they think will win regardless of ideology.

Its a reflection that they no loner believe Hillary will win.

[McCamy Taylor]

69. And yet see how the Obama camp still calls Hillary the corporate candidate based on donations given

last year solely because she was the front runner last year. They will not give up their talking points.

[tabatha]

72. PACS !!! Lobbyists !!!

Get your story straight.

[Radical Activist]

75. No. Her record makes her the corporate candidate.

From serving on the Walmart board, to supporting NAFTA and outsourcing to India. Obama also has more small, individual donors. Corporations want to see a return to the third way corporate friendly ways of her husband.

[jonestonesusa]

73. So was corporate employee support good before Obama received it?

Were you outraged when HC was receiving all that support, just last year?

Basically, what the OP and graph show is that Obama has broad and committed support across quite a range of employees, reversing Clinton's strengths in just one year of campaigning. Are we to think that this is bad in and of itself? Isn't that what a political candidate is supposed to do? And what should we make of Clinton's shrinking support among the same groups?

This reminds me of the Republican war against teachers - they get outraged because the teacher's union and people in higher education do not support them. Their lack of support should lead Republicans to wonder why - why is it that the educators of our society are opposed to our platform in such numbers?

Clinton's low support in this chart is the real story.