McCain and the supply-side mythology II | 23 comments (23 topical, 0 hidden)
Not exactly (none / 0)

I'm a huge huge Obama supporter, but its a misconception that he takes no corporate funding. Someone posted here a couple weeks ago a link to a webpage with a breakdown of financial support for each candidate by industry and it was a real eye-opener. (If anyone can point to it that would be awesome) He takes less than Hillary, true, but only by fractions.

To play devil's advocate, Obama is a genius for fundraising the way he has. But would he turn down corporate checks if he needed them to beat Hillary? 

by hazmat on 04/17/2008 05:42:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Opensecrets.org (none / 0)

by Tom Hanc on 04/17/2008 07:05:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
There is something you need to realize (none / 0)
Many corporations make donations to all sides.  They want to grease every side of the wheel, just in case.  In every race where I've looked at the money, you'll often see the same companies paying money to both sides.  You can tell which candidate a company really favors by the amounts they donate.  They're hedging their bets, that's all, they want a stake in the pot.  Candidates take the money, they'd be fools not to.  What matters is where the bulk of the funds come from. 

by bfaul on 04/17/2008 10:06:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
But (none / 1)
There is a spectrum.  Hillary has taken more from the healthcare and defense industries than any other candidate, and it's been that way for some time (including Republicans).

IMO, it's a minor point to say "they all take money".  The conversation needs to focus on these 3 things:

1)-How much money?

2)-From who?

3)-What impact might this have on specific legislation and agendas?

Hillary is very hawkish for a Democrat (did you hear what she said about Iran/Israel last night? Talk about scary), so the fact that she's also taken that much money specifically from the defense industry in light of our current situation in the world is, well, something to worry about.

And considering the state of healthcare and the need for serious reform, that's another huge concern.  I'm not saying Obama won't be influenced in some way, but he's taken a lot less money overall and again, I look at the key industries involved.

Finally, we have to keep this in the context of the fact that Obama has shattered the previous record for most individual donors. He's showing people that public financing is a viable option. Plus his short senate record backs up the idea that he wants to clean up dirty money. And his BluePrint for change also discusses publicly funded elections.

Does Hillary give ANY indication that she might do the tiniest thing on these issues?  I could add that Bill Clinton did NOTHING to reduce the number of lobbyists in Washington.  Reagan opened the floodgates, Clinton didn't close them and Bush, well, you can guess what he did.

There were less than FIFTY registered lobbyists before Reagan took office, about 17,000 when Bush Jr. took office and about 33,000 (give or take) today.

by Tom Hanc on 04/17/2008 10:54:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
to bfaul (none / 0)

er, if this was intended for me, I think you're basically agreeing with me, aren't you? why would a corporation "hedge its bets" if that didn't mean something?

Look I'm one of what bobo calls "the kool-aid drinkers" when it comes to Obama, but he ain't my uncle. Cast your vote with eyes wide open. I disagree with your statement that what matters is "where the bulk of the funds come from". You think it matters to democrats that republicans give anywhere from 60/40 to 90/10? Ahahahhhaaaaa.

Cenk has been hammering this point and he is 1000% right. Follow ze money lebowski!!!

They're in a survival game. Buying politicians is a market like any other, and the only thing ratios suggest to me (a priori) is that one candidate (or party) can be bought cheaper than the other. Put a couple thoughts behind it.

I say this with all due respect to bfaul, the writer of the flat out best post I've seen on this forum, here. I couldn't have put better myself dude.

by hazmat on 04/18/2008 02:01:34 AM EST

[ Parent ]
replace (none / 0)
"give" with "get" in the 2nd paragraph above and it makes better sense. hurk.

by hazmat on 04/18/2008 02:05:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm nitpicking (none / 0)

"er, if this was intended for me, I think you're basically agreeing with me, aren't you?"

Yes, basically I am.  I only meant to add the point that they all get some of their money from corporations, oftentimes many of the same corporations.  The well healed companies cover all of their bets, even people that they consider opposition.  I was surprised to find that this was true.  It was pointed out to me in the '80s by someone I knew very well who ran for congress.  He showed me the donor lists, which were not as accessible at the time as they are now.  With the internet you can now easily see what companies donate to who and so it's really easy to verify.  They simply give a lot more to their favorite, and they always throw in something to the likely winner (Well, the big boys at least).  The most crucial thing for me about Obama's list is the sheer number of individual people who are kicking in for him, this was true even before he lead.  Those donations come from the heart (or at least they are less cynical than the corporate donations).  So I am essentially agreeing with you that there are no viable candidates who don't take corporate money.   I would think him foolish if he refused it.

by bfaul on 04/18/2008 11:31:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Also (none / 0)
Thanks for the compliment.   I missed it the first time I read your reply.  Thanks alot.

by bfaul on 04/18/2008 11:40:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]

McCain and the supply-side mythology II | 23 comments (23 topical, 0 hidden)