Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2012

[Matt1970]

What? Now that's some grade A bullshit right there.

Republicans moved as much overseas as they can for pure profit no matter what. They are the ultimate in biting the hand that feeds them.

Oh and the moving overseas, good riddance.

Look how quickly many are finding out that wasn't the greatest idea and now moving a lot back here.

They are figuring out that catering to the 1% can only go so far.

Well that's where the money goes every time someone buys Chineese made crap so why manufacture crap in the US that nobody is going to buy?

 

[Jaskalas]

Well that's where the money goes every time someone buys Chineese made crap so why manufacture crap in the US that nobody is going to buy?

At least US products would display our true rate of inflation. We can't afford them anymore.

 

[a777pilot]

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

If my count is right 16/20 of the top donors between 1989-2012 are unions and only 4/20 favor Republicans.

How can this be true? I was told that Republicans were slaves to their corporate masters and Democrats were knights in shining armor


This thread has been reported for containing a needlessly inflammatory and/or misleading thread title.

As reported, the thread title was: "Corporations spend billions to elect Republicans"

The article title cited by the link in your OP is: "Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2012"

Per the data published in the link, $1,384,781,159 (~$1.4B) was spent on democrats while $929,721,054 (~$0.93B) was spent on republicans.

In other words not billions (plural), not even 1 billion, and misleading regarding the relative distribution between democrats and republicans.

I have changed your thread-title to reflect that which the article's author and editor felt most appropriately captured the materially significant aspects of the article you linked.

Should the new title be unacceptable to you, do not alter the thread title without first seeking moderator approval in Moderator Discussions.

Administrator Idontcare

I have an opinion, Sorry, but I can not express it. Guess.


But I will share MY program/policies on Campaign Finance Reform....which, if I am not mistake, is the subject of this thread.

My stance on political contributions is as follows:

1. Only American citizens eligible to vote ought be allowed to make political contributions. So that would eliminate, unions, corporations, foreign nationals, special interest groups* and dead people (that's for Cook county).

2. No limits. If a person wants to give their entire fortune to a political candidate, of what business is it of others?

3. No cash and no loans.

4. Full and immediate disclosure. That means within 12 hours of giving the money, the amount, who gave it, to whom it was given and the source of that money should be in the public domain for any and all to see. That also means that even if it just one dollar it must be reported and reported in full. Any contributions that a candidate receives that does not meet these qualifications must be immediately returned and if the money can't be returned it must be turned over to the local, state or federal government, depending on what office the candidate is running for.

That's my idea of campaign finance reform.


*Special Interest groups would include the NRA. They should not be able to give money to any candidate or political party because the NRA has no vote. If the NRA, under my plan, wanted to take a position on an issue, then they would have every right to make their own political ads and air them as they see fit. Just so long as there was no coordination with any party organization or candidate.

The same would hold true for unions. Or churches. Or any organization.

 

[Jhhnn]

I have an opinion, Sorry, but I can not express it. Guess.


But I will share MY program/policies on Campaign Finance Reform....which, if I am not mistake, is the subject of this thread.

Well, if we don't have limits, then those who give the most money will have the most say, which isn't any sort of reform over the current situation.

And I really don't have a problem with organized groups exercising political speech, only when such groups exist as a means of anonymizing those who pay for it. In that, I think we can agree.

Unions and corporations are radically different in that respect. Union memberships & funding are easy to trace, corporate ownership nearly impossible when obfuscation is the goal. It's the same wrt the donor structure of so-called charitable organizations engaged in politics.

Got something to say & the money to have it be heard? Step right up & do it, don't hide behind the curtain like the Wizard of Oz...

 

[a777pilot]

Well, if we don't have limits, then those who give the most money will have the most say, which isn't any sort of reform over the current situation.

There is this little thing called Freedom of Speech, but if you don't like my idea, please, by all means, suggest a limit that you would like to see.

 

[nehalem256]

Originally Posted by BoomerD
A working man who votes for a Republican is like a chicken who votes for Colonel Sanders...:biggrin:



What? Now that's some grade A bullshit right there.

Republicans moved as much overseas as they can for pure profit no matter what. They are the ultimate in biting the hand that feeds them.

Oh and the moving overseas, good riddance.

Look how quickly many are finding out that wasn't the greatest idea and now moving a lot back here.

They are figuring out that catering to the 1% can only go so far.

So your argument is that all businesses are run only by Republicans?

Although if we were to believe that was true would that not also mean that only Republicans create jobs? :hmm:

 

[blankslate]

I have an opinion, Sorry, but I can not express it. Guess.

The original post looked at one chart from a page amongst several or dozens that paint a more complete picture of the state of political donations covering a period of years.

The picture that all of the data from the site put together is different when taken as a whole than what the OP is trying to say when he links one chart (and thus incomplete data) from the site.

more detail here...
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33538067&postcount=35

Basically the post took link to a single page that was most favorable to his position when looking at more pages provides a more "balanced" look at the issue the site is offering us data about.

 

[zinfamous]

There is this little thing called Freedom of Speech, but if you don't like my idea, please, by all means, suggest a limit that you would like to see.

too bad they can hide behind shell "non-profits," so you can never truly know who is speaking what message to whom.

this is the world you want.

I wonder if the teabggers would truly care to learn the nature of the anti-worker, anti-job creation, anti-freedom minders that created and fund their little movement?