When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
33 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
SoCal Chris
15 years ago
Here’s the video from today of Obama making his “important announcement”:
Do you think this is the “change” Obambi is talking about? Changing his mind from one moment to the next whenever it seems advantageous to him?
Fit fit
15 years ago
McCain lost all moral authority on campaign finance. He’s likely to be indicted for FEC fraud as it is.
If McCain had pledged to cut lobbyist funding and do something about the 527’s, Obama would have been obligated to take public financing. Those conditions were not met.
Fit fit, don’t look now, but your partisanship is showing.
jainphx
15 years ago
Forget the fact that Oshamamassiah is a practicing liar and phony, he’s a Democrap. Todays Democraps are yesterdays communist, does anyone need more proof than their own words. My gosh socialism 101, nationalize private industry is found on page 1 of the play book.
Fit fit
15 years ago
No excuses, just facts.
If I say I’m going to give you my sandwich if you give me a dollar, I don’t owe you a sandwich if you don’t give me a dollar.
I doubt there are many of us here that are thrilled with McCain on many issues… most especially his campaign finance antics. That will come back to haunt him. Then again, at least he’s done something that can haunt him, as opposed to Obama who landed in Congress, worked 147 days then announced his run for the WH. Gotta admire the ambition of that one, if not the policy mentality.
The point Fit Fit, IMHO, is that Obama made puffy, pompous speeches about his “new” politics – and most specifically making it a moral issue on public financing.
Now money needs trump morals in the quest for the WH. He needs HRC’s contributors. Can’t do that with his “morals”. So he had to make a choice – money or morals.
We see his decision.
Of course, those moral were not present during his start up. Big money investment bankers, PACs and 3rd party lobby money kicked Obama’s campaign off… a lobby industry far more powerful and even higher “outrageous” profits than “bit oil”. Only now, in the wake of the subprime, is the truth beginning to surface of the DN’s cozying up to the banking/lender business.
How ironic that McCain would end up being disadvantage by the same system he championed all these years.
I love it.
But what I don’t love is the hypocrisy of Obama and his supporters who insisted strengthening the public financing of campaigns was a good idea until they were in a position to take advantage of weakening, if not destroying, that same system.
Again, it calls into question whether Obama has ANY core beliefs over his own lust for power?
SoCal Chris
15 years ago
This is from USA Today…today:
[Obama’s pledge to reform the campaign-finance system after he gets elected reminds us of St. Augustine’s famous prayer: “Lord, make me chaste — but not yet.”
Real reformers don’t do it just when it’s convenient. The best way for Obama to support public financing is not to fix it later, but to participate in it now.]
I’m not super informed about private donations during the general election, as in Obama’s case of dropping out of the public financing provision. Is there a cap on how much one individual can donate to a candidate in such a situation? I’d appreciate anyone’s knowledge on this.
Also, the other thing that struck me about his decision is that he seems to be rebelling against “the system” just for the sake of rebellion (and the liberals that would appeal to, of course). It’s the 60’s all over again, eh?
editing to say, besides the rebellious slant, Obamboozler will be landing a ton of dough in the process!
Fit fit
15 years ago
Direct campaign contribution is $2300. I think you can contribute more to the DNC/RNC.
doug
15 years ago
So what, Obama reversed course. He said he’d stay within the system, and then didn’t. If you detractors want to shout, “Flip-flop!” it’s a reasonable enough charge. But if policy reversals are a politician’s biggest crime, John McCain would be in jail.
What can be said about this is 3 to 1, baby! Those swing states are now that much closer.
Obama wants to win and this is a winning strategy. Obama hasn’t violated any laws or done anything unethical; he’s just maximizing his chances of success. Hundreds of millions are raised in these races, lots of money is in this game to win; in tight elections it can determine a winner. And this is supposed to be scandalous?
First, this a perfectly legal and ethical decision, while McCain’s arguably illegal decision to spend over the spending limits he promised to abide by through the primary season in exchange for public financing isn’t. So, even here who is doing more wrong? Obama is opting out of a system he never entered into; McCain is playing fast and free with election law.
Second, Norm Ornstein, a fellow at the conservative AEI and who contributed to “McCain-Feingold” said yesterday Obama’s move was “pragmatically the right decision to make,” and that, if the Senator had not chosen that path, “I would have sued him for political malpractice.”
Further, McCain would have done the same thing if he were in such a fortunate position.
Lastly, you and your camp would all would be calling him a fool if he did keep the pledge. So it’s better to ‘dump the pledge’ than it is to dump the sanity of losing a winning strategy.
SoCal Chris
15 years ago
Thanks. In the meantime I did find this at the San Francisco Chronicle which says the same thing I believe:
[Under the public financing system, McCain can continue to raise and spend as much as he wants until he becomes the GOP nominee at the September convention. At that point, the Arizona senator can spend only the $84.1 million from a federal treasury fund. Taxpayers kick into the fund by voluntarily checking off a $3 contribution on their tax returns.
Obama is also in a strong position because nearly half his donors have given less than $200, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Contributions to the general election are capped at $2,300. So Obama is free to return to his small donors and ask for more.]
They don’t need to buy votes. There are enough dead people on their rolls to win.
ChrisG
15 years ago
Ahh… Move-on, what a completely trustworthy and honest group of people. (if you cannot detect the sarcasm, I am sorry)
They are still raising money though it seems and still dishing out their lies. “Change”… no, just the Chicago political machine gone national.
BarbaraS
15 years ago
And if the dead people don’t work they can always send ACORN out to get Daffy and Donald to reapply to vote on election day. Or even Mary Poppins. Then again they can send voters who somehow can’t remember their voting places to other places and vote numerous times. These votes can be challenged after the fact. And that fact would be when the media calls the winner Obama before half of the votes are in. The dems can always call voter suppressioin again. Then again maybe the media can say the panhandle of Florida polls are closed an hour early like they did in 2000. It’s been 8 years after all. The public might have forgotten this ruse. Or they can slash the tires of republican “get out the vote” cars. The possiblities are limitless and the dems know all the dirty tricks.
Mike, first, please try to engage the argument … opting out of his “pledge” doesn’t entail he has “no principles”. It’s simply manic hype you’re stirring.
Second, if Obama was in McCain’s shoes and was arguably breaking the law with an illegal decision to spend over the spending limits, when he promised to not to, prior to national the campaign, you would ‘have a cow’.
Third, if he ‘dumped’ the “pledge” you’d still say he didn’t have judgment or experience.
Forth, ‘stands for’ is an empty term in politics. In politics if it means anything at all, it means supporting for one’s constituency; if it has meaning outside that, then it’s only at the margins; if it has meaning beyond that, then they are hemlock bound.
Fifth, Norm Ornstein is cool with Obama’s decision.
Six, nice graphic work!
—
Nice link, Fit fit. That was excellent timing on Move-on’s part, as it will be incorporated into public finance segments over everyones weekend tvee portions. ; ) … just another challenge to McCain to step up to his “Mr. Reformer” image.
—-
(AP) Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s campaign announced Friday that he will campaign with former rival Hillary Rodham Clinton next week, a step toward unifying a fractured Democratic Party after a bruising primary fight.
Obama’s campaign said in a brief e-mail that said the two senators and former opponents will campaign together for the first time on Friday, June 27, and more details would be forthcoming.
A day earlier, Obama and Clinton also plan to meet in Washington with some of her top contributors in an effort to calm donors who remain frustrated with Obama’s presidential campaign. The former first lady will introduce Obama to her financial backers.
…
Doug, if you can justify Obama’s November 2007 statement:
If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”
With his current position then you have clearly sipped the Kool Aid.
Is this the “change” you people go on and on about?
“Change” your mind no matter what the principles involved?
Well, “So what?” None of us ever expected you folks to actually say or do anything that wasn’t a calculated grab for political power. And you are proving us right.
doug
15 years ago
I already answered that question, Mike. Contrast it with McCain’s primary season public financing illegality.
Aye: It’s the same scam Dems played with the Jack Abramof scandal. You may recall that was a “Republican Scandal” simply because Democrats never received any personal contributions from Abramoff. It didn’t seem to matter that Abramoff directed the following contributions to Democrats, many in exchange for favors:
Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) Received At Least $22,500
Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) Received At Least $6,500
Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) Received At Least $1,250
Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Received At Least $2,000
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Received At Least $20,250
Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) Received At Least $21,765
Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) Received At Least $7,500
Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Received At Least $12,950
Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) Received At Least $8,000
Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ) Received At Least $7,500
Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) Received At Least $14,792
Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) Received At Least $79,300
Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) Received At Least $14,000
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Received At Least $2,000
Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) Received At Least $1,250
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) Received At Least $45,750
Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) Received At Least $9,000
Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT) Received At Least $2,000
Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) Received At Least $14,250
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Received At Least $3,300
Senator John Kerry (D-MA) Received At Least $98,550
Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) Received At Least $28,000
Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) Received At Least $4,000
Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) Received At Least $6,000
Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) Received At Least $29,830
Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) Received At Least $14,891
Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) Received At Least $10,550
Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) Received At Least $78,991
Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) Received At Least $20,168
Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) Received At Least $5,200
Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) Received At Least $7,500
Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) Received At Least $2,300
Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) Received At Least $3,500
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) Received At Least $68,941
Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV) Received At Least $4,000
Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) Received At Least $4,500
Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) Received At Least $4,300
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Received At Least $29,550
Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) Received At Least $6,250
Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) Received At Least $6,250
And of course, let’s reprint here the amounts that Obama has recieved from PAC/lobbyist bundling:
Goldman Sachs $571,330
University of California $437,236
UBS AG $364,806
JPMorgan Chase & Co $362,207
Citigroup Inc $358,054
National Amusements Inc $320,750
Lehman Brothers $318,647
Google Inc $309,514
Harvard University $309,025
Sidley Austin LLP $294,245
Skadden, Arps et al $270,013
Time Warner $262,677
Morgan Stanley $259,876
Jones Day $250,725
Exelon Corp $236,211
University of Chicago $218,857
Wilmerhale LLP $218,680
Latham & Watkins $218,615
Microsoft Corp $209,242
Stanford University $195,262
The claim that Obama is somehow a “change” from the big money Democrat lobbyists and PACs is laughable.
Fit Fit, you’re falling prey to the no lobbyist funds from Obama. He just took an indirect route for his campaign monies kick off. Since you wouldn’t believe it from Fox or conservative blogs, I’ll give you this from… believe it or not… Common Dreams. The way far left/progressive site, as you’d probably know.
While pledging to turn down donations from lobbyists themselves, Sen. Barack Obama raised more than $1 million in the first three months of his presidential campaign from law firms and companies that have major lobbying operations in the nation’s capital. Portraying himself as a new-style politician determined to reform Washington, Obama makes his policy clear in fundraising invitations, stating that he takes no donations from “federal lobbyists.” His aides announced last week he was returning $43,000 to lobbyists who donated to his campaign.
But the Illinois Democrat’s policy of shunning money from lobbyists registered to do business on Capitol Hill does not extend to lawyers whose partners lobby there.
Nor does the ban apply to corporations that have major lobbying operations in Washington. And the prohibition does not extend to lobbyists who ply their trade in such state capitals as Springfield, Ill.; Tallahassee, Fla.; and Sacramento, though some deal with national clients and issues.
“Clearly, the distinction is not that significant,” said Stephen Weissman of the Campaign Finance Institute, a nonpartisan think tank that focuses on campaign issues.
“He gets an asterisk that says he is trying to be different,” Weissman said. “But overall, the same wealthy interests are funding his campaign as are funding other candidates, whether or not they are lobbyists.”
Well now… quite the different story than what’s pounded into the gullible electorate’s brain, eh? And now poised to take further advantage of it with his “change” of morality on public financing.
I’d say the “change” we all believe Obama is capable of delivering is stated quite simply in the graphic below.
Right on, Mr. Mike. But wow… that’s a big chunk of chump “change” for John “Lurch” Kerry there… woof. What happened? Did Teresa cut him off of his allowance?
oooo… I like that Obama and “chump change”. Graphic time, Mr. Mike! Need one for “Chump Change” you can believe in!
How about Dr. Seuss’s North Going Zax arguing the point with the South Going Zax?
BarbaraS
15 years ago
Mike
That’s 44 dem senators with one dem leaning independent. I wonder if the other five dem senators wonder where their share of the gravy is. If we have a press that was worth a damn this information would be published instead of calling the Abamoff scandal a republican scandal.
Barbara: That was the frustrating part of the Abramoff scandal. Abramoff made personal contributions ONLY to Republicans. But these amounts were within the limits allowed by law and nearly insigificant compared to the tens of thousands his clients gave to Democrats at his direction.
I’ve often said that we will never have any meaningful ethics reform if the Dems are simply able to deny they have their hands in the cookie jar too. What motivation is there for them to reform? They can benefit from the present system while blaming Republicans of doing the very same thing.
Here’s the video from today of Obama making his “important announcement”:
https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/bignews?source=20080619_PF_ND_G
Do you think this is the “change” Obambi is talking about? Changing his mind from one moment to the next whenever it seems advantageous to him?
McCain lost all moral authority on campaign finance. He’s likely to be indicted for FEC fraud as it is.
If McCain had pledged to cut lobbyist funding and do something about the 527’s, Obama would have been obligated to take public financing. Those conditions were not met.
“If McCain had pledged to cut lobbyist funding and do something about the 527’s,”
Excuses, excuses… weak lame and transparent. You people NEVER accept any responsiblity, it’s always someone else’s fault.
I suppose the projection that Obama could raise and spend $200 million and have 527’s on his side do much more had nothing to do with it.
Fit fit, don’t look now, but your partisanship is showing.
Forget the fact that Oshamamassiah is a practicing liar and phony, he’s a Democrap. Todays Democraps are yesterdays communist, does anyone need more proof than their own words. My gosh socialism 101, nationalize private industry is found on page 1 of the play book.
No excuses, just facts.
If I say I’m going to give you my sandwich if you give me a dollar, I don’t owe you a sandwich if you don’t give me a dollar.
Jainphx: The only thing Democrats want privatized is campaign financing. Everything else should be the property of the government.
I doubt there are many of us here that are thrilled with McCain on many issues… most especially his campaign finance antics. That will come back to haunt him. Then again, at least he’s done something that can haunt him, as opposed to Obama who landed in Congress, worked 147 days then announced his run for the WH. Gotta admire the ambition of that one, if not the policy mentality.
The point Fit Fit, IMHO, is that Obama made puffy, pompous speeches about his “new” politics – and most specifically making it a moral issue on public financing.
Now money needs trump morals in the quest for the WH. He needs HRC’s contributors. Can’t do that with his “morals”. So he had to make a choice – money or morals.
We see his decision.
Of course, those moral were not present during his start up. Big money investment bankers, PACs and 3rd party lobby money kicked Obama’s campaign off… a lobby industry far more powerful and even higher “outrageous” profits than “bit oil”. Only now, in the wake of the subprime, is the truth beginning to surface of the DN’s cozying up to the banking/lender business.
This bothers you not?
How ironic that McCain would end up being disadvantage by the same system he championed all these years.
I love it.
But what I don’t love is the hypocrisy of Obama and his supporters who insisted strengthening the public financing of campaigns was a good idea until they were in a position to take advantage of weakening, if not destroying, that same system.
Again, it calls into question whether Obama has ANY core beliefs over his own lust for power?
This is from USA Today…today:
[Obama’s pledge to reform the campaign-finance system after he gets elected reminds us of St. Augustine’s famous prayer: “Lord, make me chaste — but not yet.”
Real reformers don’t do it just when it’s convenient. The best way for Obama to support public financing is not to fix it later, but to participate in it now.]
I’m not super informed about private donations during the general election, as in Obama’s case of dropping out of the public financing provision. Is there a cap on how much one individual can donate to a candidate in such a situation? I’d appreciate anyone’s knowledge on this.
Also, the other thing that struck me about his decision is that he seems to be rebelling against “the system” just for the sake of rebellion (and the liberals that would appeal to, of course). It’s the 60’s all over again, eh?
editing to say, besides the rebellious slant, Obamboozler will be landing a ton of dough in the process!
Direct campaign contribution is $2300. I think you can contribute more to the DNC/RNC.
So what, Obama reversed course. He said he’d stay within the system, and then didn’t. If you detractors want to shout, “Flip-flop!” it’s a reasonable enough charge. But if policy reversals are a politician’s biggest crime, John McCain would be in jail.
What can be said about this is 3 to 1, baby! Those swing states are now that much closer.
Obama wants to win and this is a winning strategy. Obama hasn’t violated any laws or done anything unethical; he’s just maximizing his chances of success. Hundreds of millions are raised in these races, lots of money is in this game to win; in tight elections it can determine a winner. And this is supposed to be scandalous?
First, this a perfectly legal and ethical decision, while McCain’s arguably illegal decision to spend over the spending limits he promised to abide by through the primary season in exchange for public financing isn’t. So, even here who is doing more wrong? Obama is opting out of a system he never entered into; McCain is playing fast and free with election law.
Second, Norm Ornstein, a fellow at the conservative AEI and who contributed to “McCain-Feingold” said yesterday Obama’s move was “pragmatically the right decision to make,” and that, if the Senator had not chosen that path, “I would have sued him for political malpractice.”
Further, McCain would have done the same thing if he were in such a fortunate position.
Lastly, you and your camp would all would be calling him a fool if he did keep the pledge. So it’s better to ‘dump the pledge’ than it is to dump the sanity of losing a winning strategy.
Thanks. In the meantime I did find this at the San Francisco Chronicle which says the same thing I believe:
[Under the public financing system, McCain can continue to raise and spend as much as he wants until he becomes the GOP nominee at the September convention. At that point, the Arizona senator can spend only the $84.1 million from a federal treasury fund. Taxpayers kick into the fund by voluntarily checking off a $3 contribution on their tax returns.
Obama is also in a strong position because nearly half his donors have given less than $200, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Contributions to the general election are capped at $2,300. So Obama is free to return to his small donors and ask for more.]
Hopey Changefulness!
Turns out the Obamessiah is just an ordinary politician.
Sounds like admit that the Dems are planning to buy the votes they need.
Suck on this Change!
They don’t need to buy votes. There are enough dead people on their rolls to win.
Ahh… Move-on, what a completely trustworthy and honest group of people. (if you cannot detect the sarcasm, I am sorry)
They are still raising money though it seems and still dishing out their lies. “Change”… no, just the Chicago political machine gone national.
And if the dead people don’t work they can always send ACORN out to get Daffy and Donald to reapply to vote on election day. Or even Mary Poppins. Then again they can send voters who somehow can’t remember their voting places to other places and vote numerous times. These votes can be challenged after the fact. And that fact would be when the media calls the winner Obama before half of the votes are in. The dems can always call voter suppressioin again. Then again maybe the media can say the panhandle of Florida polls are closed an hour early like they did in 2000. It’s been 8 years after all. The public might have forgotten this ruse. Or they can slash the tires of republican “get out the vote” cars. The possiblities are limitless and the dems know all the dirty tricks.
Vote for the Chicago Stalinist funded by the Soros/Rezko bundlers, or the Dead will anyhow!!
Doug says “so what?”
So what if Obama has no principles?
So what if none of us, let alone you, knows what he would really stand for?
So what if he is lacks the experience or judgement to be a good President?
Yeah Doug! So What!
What a fantastic endorsement of your candidate.
Are you going to print up Bumper Stickers?
Hot Myspace Generators
Mike, first, please try to engage the argument … opting out of his “pledge” doesn’t entail he has “no principles”. It’s simply manic hype you’re stirring.
Second, if Obama was in McCain’s shoes and was arguably breaking the law with an illegal decision to spend over the spending limits, when he promised to not to, prior to national the campaign, you would ‘have a cow’.
Third, if he ‘dumped’ the “pledge” you’d still say he didn’t have judgment or experience.
Forth, ‘stands for’ is an empty term in politics. In politics if it means anything at all, it means supporting for one’s constituency; if it has meaning outside that, then it’s only at the margins; if it has meaning beyond that, then they are hemlock bound.
Fifth, Norm Ornstein is cool with Obama’s decision.
Six, nice graphic work!
—
Nice link, Fit fit. That was excellent timing on Move-on’s part, as it will be incorporated into public finance segments over everyones weekend tvee portions. ; ) … just another challenge to McCain to step up to his “Mr. Reformer” image.
—-
…4 to 1, baby!
Doug, if you can justify Obama’s November 2007 statement:
With his current position then you have clearly sipped the Kool Aid.
Is this the “change” you people go on and on about?
“Change” your mind no matter what the principles involved?
Well, “So what?” None of us ever expected you folks to actually say or do anything that wasn’t a calculated grab for political power. And you are proving us right.
I already answered that question, Mike. Contrast it with McCain’s primary season public financing illegality.
Now that right there is the funniest thing I have read in a long time.
Breaking his word means he cannot be trusted.
Hopey Changefulness strikes again!
This is change, and this.
Fit fit,
Don’t fly too close to the flame on the lobbyist restrictions.
They aren’t what you think they are.
I seem to recall you saying earlier that they were “largely symbolic” on another thread.
Now you want to tout these changes as significant?
Aye: It’s the same scam Dems played with the Jack Abramof scandal. You may recall that was a “Republican Scandal” simply because Democrats never received any personal contributions from Abramoff. It didn’t seem to matter that Abramoff directed the following contributions to Democrats, many in exchange for favors:
Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) Received At Least $22,500
Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) Received At Least $6,500
Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) Received At Least $1,250
Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Received At Least $2,000
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Received At Least $20,250
Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) Received At Least $21,765
Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) Received At Least $7,500
Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Received At Least $12,950
Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) Received At Least $8,000
Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ) Received At Least $7,500
Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) Received At Least $14,792
Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) Received At Least $79,300
Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) Received At Least $14,000
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Received At Least $2,000
Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) Received At Least $1,250
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) Received At Least $45,750
Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) Received At Least $9,000
Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT) Received At Least $2,000
Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) Received At Least $14,250
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Received At Least $3,300
Senator John Kerry (D-MA) Received At Least $98,550
Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) Received At Least $28,000
Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) Received At Least $4,000
Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) Received At Least $6,000
Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) Received At Least $29,830
Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) Received At Least $14,891
Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) Received At Least $10,550
Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) Received At Least $78,991
Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) Received At Least $20,168
Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) Received At Least $5,200
Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) Received At Least $7,500
Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) Received At Least $2,300
Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) Received At Least $3,500
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) Received At Least $68,941
Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV) Received At Least $4,000
Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) Received At Least $4,500
Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) Received At Least $4,300
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Received At Least $29,550
Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) Received At Least $6,250
Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) Received At Least $6,250
And of course, let’s reprint here the amounts that Obama has recieved from PAC/lobbyist bundling:
Goldman Sachs $571,330
University of California $437,236
UBS AG $364,806
JPMorgan Chase & Co $362,207
Citigroup Inc $358,054
National Amusements Inc $320,750
Lehman Brothers $318,647
Google Inc $309,514
Harvard University $309,025
Sidley Austin LLP $294,245
Skadden, Arps et al $270,013
Time Warner $262,677
Morgan Stanley $259,876
Jones Day $250,725
Exelon Corp $236,211
University of Chicago $218,857
Wilmerhale LLP $218,680
Latham & Watkins $218,615
Microsoft Corp $209,242
Stanford University $195,262
The claim that Obama is somehow a “change” from the big money Democrat lobbyists and PACs is laughable.
Fit Fit, you’re falling prey to the no lobbyist funds from Obama. He just took an indirect route for his campaign monies kick off. Since you wouldn’t believe it from Fox or conservative blogs, I’ll give you this from… believe it or not… Common Dreams. The way far left/progressive site, as you’d probably know.
Well now… quite the different story than what’s pounded into the gullible electorate’s brain, eh? And now poised to take further advantage of it with his “change” of morality on public financing.
I’d say the “change” we all believe Obama is capable of delivering is stated quite simply in the graphic below.
Right on, Mr. Mike. But wow… that’s a big chunk of chump “change” for John “Lurch” Kerry there… woof. What happened? Did Teresa cut him off of his allowance?
oooo… I like that Obama and “chump change”. Graphic time, Mr. Mike! Need one for “Chump Change” you can believe in!
How about Dr. Seuss’s North Going Zax arguing the point with the South Going Zax?
Mike
That’s 44 dem senators with one dem leaning independent. I wonder if the other five dem senators wonder where their share of the gravy is. If we have a press that was worth a damn this information would be published instead of calling the Abamoff scandal a republican scandal.
Barbara: That was the frustrating part of the Abramoff scandal. Abramoff made personal contributions ONLY to Republicans. But these amounts were within the limits allowed by law and nearly insigificant compared to the tens of thousands his clients gave to Democrats at his direction.
I’ve often said that we will never have any meaningful ethics reform if the Dems are simply able to deny they have their hands in the cookie jar too. What motivation is there for them to reform? They can benefit from the present system while blaming Republicans of doing the very same thing.