Submitted by 60th Street on Sun, 05/03/2009 - 1:48pm.
Just an extended thought before I go walk the mutz. Toni asked: in her post "something I can't understand"
Why is the government so afraid of letting some banks fail?
And why are they afraid of doing away with Health Insurance companies?
I've been thinking about how online small donor fundraising from individuals has recently turned the political establishment on its ear. Groups like MoveOn, DailyKos and pioneer pols like Howard Dean and Barack Obama raked in a lot of cash from small donors. Obama blew everyone away by raising 3/4 of a billion (BILLION!) dollars which must have been a HUGE shock to the system.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Uh, small donors? Not so much. Meet Obama’s Corporate Backers August 8, 2008 by Jay Morgan
• Donor: Goldman Sachs & Co. How Much: $627,730 • Donor: JP Morgan How Much: $398,021 • Donor: Citigroup How Much: $393,899 • Donor: UBS AG How Much: $378,400 • Donor: Google How Much: $373,212 • Donor: Lehman Brothers How Much: $353,922 • Donor: National Amusements How Much: $352,603 (This is Sumner Redstone's company, btw)
OK. So then there's this from LA Times Nov 28,2008 Obama's small donor base image is a myth, new study reveals
- Everybody knows how President-elect Barack Obama's amazing campaign money machine was dominated by several million regular folks sending in hard-earned amounts under $200, a real sign of his broadbased grassroots support.
Except, it turns out, that's not really true.
In fact, Obama's base of small donors was almost exactly the same percent as George W. Bush's in 2004 -- Obama had 26% and the great Republican satan 25%. Obviously, this is unacceptable to current popular thinking.
But the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute just issued a detailed study of Obama's donor base and its giving. And that's what the Institute found, to its own surprise.
"The myth is that money from small donors dominated Barack Obama's finances," said CFI's executive director Michael Malbin, admitting that his organization also was fooled. "The reality of Obama's fundraising was impressive, but the reality does not match the myth."
Adding up the total contributions from the same small individuals (in terms of dollar amounts, not their height), the Institute discovered that rather than the 50+% commonly....reported throughout the campaign, only 26% of Obama's contributions through last August and only 24% through Oct. 15 came from people whose total donations added up to less than $200.
60th also notes, "He might be protecting the banks because, at this point, the Democratic party as a whole might just still need them. " Uh, see link & list above.
Good Rant, 60th, but your premise is FALSE. You get to be president BECAUSE Corporate Amerika and their massive media arm says so, not small donations from we da peeps. In fact, Obama WITHDREW from public financing, setting back that effort years.
Just sayin'...
**
A response...."60th...your premise is FALSE"
Jesus! I sneak off for eight, or so, hours to do some work and the concept of mathematics along with any attention to detail is tossed out like a condom on a summer evening!
Look, I'm tired Mr. "Filthy Rich" or whoever you really are, and I need to sleep, but allow me to knock a little sense into your pretty head before I retire, as I sip my tasty ale.
First, I want you to promise me that, from now on, whenever you see the words "blog" and "L.A. Times" on the same page with any negative stats or text on Barack Obama (or any Liberal, for that matter) make sure you scroll down and double check that the name "Andrew Malcolm" isn't attached to said text. Chances are high that they are, as was the case in the source you provided. Frankly, it was obvious by the title.
Andrew Malcolm was Laura Bush's press secretary. Yes, I said LAURA Bush, so you're welcome for me having had to introduce you to the sad fact that you cited a right wing cracker who had the second most pathetic job on the planet until he landed, somehow, at the L.A. Times. You might also know him by his oft used Eschaton alias "Wanker of the Day". Malcom, in turn, was citing a since thoroughly debunked report by Michael Malbin, who was a speechwriter for Dick Cheney. So, nice work there as well. I am glad to know you pay close attention to your sources. I'm sure if you google "myth" +"Obama" +"Small donors" you'll find that kernel of lie spread widely across the wingnut-o-sphere. Don't take my word for it, though.
Second, allow me to paste in your paltry figures:
"• Donor: Goldman Sachs & Co. How Much: $627,730 • Donor: JP Morgan How Much: $398,021 • Donor: Citigroup How Much: $393,899 • Donor: UBS AG How Much: $378,400 • Donor: Google How Much: $373,212 • Donor: Lehman Brothers How Much: $353,922 • Donor: National Amusements How Much: $352,603 (This is Sumner Redstone's company, btw)"
Here, I'll even give you a larger (still paltry) list just for fun!
University of California $1,385,675 Goldman Sachs $980,945 Microsoft Corp $806,299 Harvard University $793,460 Google Inc $790,564 Citigroup Inc $657,268 JPMorgan Chase & Co $650,758 Stanford University $580,904 Sidley Austin LLP $574,938 Time Warner $547,951 National Amusements Inc $541,251 WilmerHale $524,292 UBS AG $522,019 IBM Corp $518,557 Skadden, Arps et al $510,274 Columbia University $503,566 Morgan Stanley $490,873 US Government $479,956 General Electric $479,454 Latham & Watkins $467,311
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
Now, Obama raised about $750 MILLION dollars. Here's where the MATH comes in. Total up all of these corporate donors and tell me what percentage of 750 MILLION that is and THEN we can have a discussion about where we personally feel Obama's allegiances lie. Hell, if you're still feeling lazy, go here and read about the debunking of your stats:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/study-that-hits-myth-of-o_b_...
or here: http://mediamatters.org/research/200808070003
or here: http://electionlawblog.org/archives/012561.html
And note, for good measure, that in the last source here, the author helps make my point that while Obama made great leaps in public financed campaigns, "[It] doesn't prove that micro-donors can be the primary funders for a presidential campaign, but it sure suggests it is possible." Herein lies the fundraising conundrum for traditional politicians not running for the presidency, but for less popular congressional offices, which was the actual "premise" of what I wrote.
Remember, also, that Obama opted out of accepting TAXPAYER money set aside for Presidential elections which would have put him in the same trap John Kerry found himself swiftboated in as the 527s skirted the campaign finance laws in 2004. Instead, Obama saved the government 85 MILLION in taxpayer dollars and accepted money directly from people, mostly from small donors, roughly 15% of which were "micro" donors donating under $200 dollars each. Thats $117 million dollars from MICRO donors, alone, which is $32 million more than the amount he would have been capped at had he opted into the system. Here's more info on how he outsmarted Republicans in doing that, so stop sticking up for them.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-nichanian/obama-opting-out-of-publi...
"this machine kills fascists"
