Woot! He's going through with it

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: CPA
Looks like Obama has you folks fooled again.

Lobbyist money and the fine line

Significantly, the Center?s lobbyist sector excludes in-house lobbyists who work solely for one company, union, trade association, or other group. These people may lobby, but their contributions are grouped in the totals for the various industries they represent, along with contributions from other employees in the sector, their relatives, whatever PAC money has been raised, and donations from trade and professional associations which, of course, carry lots of weight in the horse trading that occurs when legislation is drafted. (Corporations cannot contribute directly to candidates.)

Contributions made by the various industry sectors tell the real story in a presidential race. And Opensecrets.org shows that Obama is picking up gobs of money put on the table by these special interests?including those involved in health care, which will surely have a lot riding on the outcome of the election and will expect to be heard after the election is over.

Consider the sector called lawyers and law firms. Clearly, lawyers and law firms lobby on behalf of their own interests?like fighting malpractice reform, which could again surface as a thorny issue for the new administration. Clinton and Obama have raised similar amounts from lawyers and law firms?$11.8 and $9.5 million. McCain and Huckabee have taken far less. The health sector has also given to Obama, Clinton, and McCain. In the pharmaceutical and health product industries, contributions to Clinton total $349,000 and $338,000 to Obama. Again, McCain trails in donations at about $98,000, an indication that the sector sees the real action on the Democratic side of the ballot. Health professionals, which include doctors, nurses, and dentists, have given Clinton some $2.3 million and Obama $1.7 million.

Last August The Boston Globe, in a piece by Scott Helman, took a hard look at Obama?s contributions, noting that ?behind Obama?s campaign rhetoric about taking on special interests lies a more complicated truth.? That truth revealed that as a state legislator in Illinois, a U.S. senator, and as a presidential aspirant, Obama had collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists and PACs. Helman quoted an Obama campaign spokeswoman saying that after he experienced firsthand the influence of Washington lobbyists, he was taking a different approach to fundraising than he had in the past, and that ?his leadership position on this issue is an evolving process.? If Obama?s leadership on campaign financing is indeed evolving, more news outlets should be following the evolution.



And for your viewing pleasure

Yep. Who needs lobbyists when you can have bundlers that remove all transparency?
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
not to mention -- are the democrats still holding up FEC appointments so that they can't actually meet to do/decide anything?
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: loki8481
not to mention -- are the democrats still holding up FEC appointments so that they can't actually meet to do/decide anything?

yup
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
Good political gimmick - even intelligent AT guys don't see he's just using big corporate donors who skirt disclosure requirements and it's all symbolism over substance. General public will eat this up too. Thanks to CPA for showing us the truth.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.php?ind=K01

See this is a clear cut case of libs putting words ahead of substance. Not ONE! lib has stepped in here and admitted Barack is being dishonest, or at least not telling the whole truth. Not One, yet there's the evidence. Pathetic.
 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: Zebo
Good political gimmick - even intelligent AT guys don't see he's just using big corporate donors who skirt disclosure requirements and it's all symbolism over substance. General public will eat this up too. Thanks to CPA for showing us the truth.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.php?ind=K01

See this is a clear cut case of libs putting words ahead of substance. Not ONE! lib has stepped in here and admitted Barack is being dishonest, or at least not telling the whole truth. Not One, yet there's the evidence. Pathetic.

Haha, thats great. I'm waiting for jpeyton to call this a "non-issue" as well.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: Zebo
Good political gimmick - even intelligent AT guys don't see he's just using big corporate donors who skirt disclosure requirements and it's all symbolism over substance. General public will eat this up too. Thanks to CPA for showing us the truth.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.php?ind=K01

See this is a clear cut case of libs putting words ahead of substance. Not ONE! lib has stepped in here and admitted Barack is being dishonest, or at least not telling the whole truth. Not One, yet there's the evidence. Pathetic.

Haha, thats great. I'm waiting for jpeyton to call this a "non-issue" as well.

No surprise at all about the lawyers. Big Law generates a quarter trillion in revenues each year. Have to keep the party and presidential candidate of change from changing anything regarding litigation laws in this country.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: RKDaley
Originally posted by: Dari
It's a start.
X2

Pffft. You guys are just drinking the Kool-Aid. It's all or nothing with campaign reform. There is no starting point allowed. Either complete overhaul or nothing. ;)
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: Zebo
Good political gimmick - even intelligent AT guys don't see he's just using big corporate donors who skirt disclosure requirements and it's all symbolism over substance. General public will eat this up too. Thanks to CPA for showing us the truth.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.php?ind=K01

See this is a clear cut case of libs putting words ahead of substance. Not ONE! lib has stepped in here and admitted Barack is being dishonest, or at least not telling the whole truth. Not One, yet there's the evidence. Pathetic.

Allow me. I'm a liberal, I've always been in favor of removing lobbyist money from the system, and I appreciate what Obama is doing. But as a rational thinker, I realize that there is no way that you are going to remove that money from the political sphere. Whatever changes are enacted, the people with money will find a way to skirt the issue and get their money in, because they know that money talks, and they want the voice. Obama knows this, as does every politician who has argued in favor of campaign finance reform. As important an issue as it is, it is not something I imagine will ever be corrected because money and power go hand-in-hand in our country.

I do appreciate that Barack stuck to his guns, but ultimately, yes, this is a hollow gesture that accomplishes little but making the lobbyists and special interests groups jump through one more small hoop to get their money into the system. In that regard, it is somewhat of a pandering gesture to ivory tower liberals who want to believe that someone can get elected purely on their principles and not for how much money they are able to raise.

I still prefer Obama to Hillary and McCain though. :D
 

BladeVenom

Lifer
Jun 2, 2005
13,365
16
0
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Last night Lobbyist changed all their cards to say Interested Parties.

Exactly. This is just an Orwellian move; more newspeak for his useful idiots.

Seems everyone else has already forgotten McCain Finegold, and 527 organizations.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: Zebo
Good political gimmick - even intelligent AT guys don't see he's just using big corporate donors who skirt disclosure requirements and it's all symbolism over substance. General public will eat this up too. Thanks to CPA for showing us the truth.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.php?ind=K01

See this is a clear cut case of libs putting words ahead of substance. Not ONE! lib has stepped in here and admitted Barack is being dishonest, or at least not telling the whole truth. Not One, yet there's the evidence. Pathetic.

Allow me. I'm a liberal, I've always been in favor of removing lobbyist money from the system, and I appreciate what Obama is doing. But as a rational thinker, I realize that there is no way that you are going to remove that money from the political sphere. Whatever changes are enacted, the people with money will find a way to skirt the issue and get their money in, because they know that money talks, and they want the voice. Obama knows this, as does every politician who has argued in favor of campaign finance reform. As important an issue as it is, it is not something I imagine will ever be corrected because money and power go hand-in-hand in our country.

I do appreciate that Barack stuck to his guns, but ultimately, yes, this is a hollow gesture that accomplishes little but making the lobbyists and special interests groups jump through one more small hoop to get their money into the system. In that regard, it is somewhat of a pandering gesture to ivory tower liberals who want to believe that someone can get elected purely on their principles and not for how much money they are able to raise.

I still prefer Obama to Hillary and McCain though. :D

:thumbsup:

Thank you. I am glad someone came on board with this one to show that not all of us who support Obama are extremists and we do apply the kind of thinking which involves looking at the big picture. Liberal extremists are just as dangerous as conservative extremists. They just happen to use different weapons.
 

naddicott

Senior member
Jul 3, 2002
793
0
76
For sure the money will get spent somehow.

I take the most comfort in tidbits like these:
In February, the Obama campaign reported that 94 percent of their donations came in increments of $200 or less, versus 26 percent for Clinton and 13 percent for McCain. Obama?s claim of 1,276,000 donors through March is so large that Clinton doesn?t bother to compete; she stopped regularly providing her own number last year.
(source)

The internet fundraising of Obama's campaign this year is the first time a presidential candidate has been more beholden to the little people than the big donors by the actual dollar percentages. However you feel about that candidate, that's a good trend that I hope sees repetition in future elections.

edit: added bold.
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: Zebo
Good political gimmick - even intelligent AT guys don't see he's just using big corporate donors who skirt disclosure requirements and it's all symbolism over substance. General public will eat this up too. Thanks to CPA for showing us the truth.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.php?ind=K01

See this is a clear cut case of libs putting words ahead of substance. Not ONE! lib has stepped in here and admitted Barack is being dishonest, or at least not telling the whole truth. Not One, yet there's the evidence. Pathetic.

Except that takes anyone who gives more than 200$ and uses the "occupation" they list down. As such since I work for university when I donated 500$ to Obama and listed my occupation I am now part of that "corporate" influence. :roll:

Your link is faulty.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
349
126
New Democratic car cuts gas usage from 20 MPG to 10 MPG.

Dems: Dem car is the leader on fighting pollution!

Repubs: Dem car pollutes 10 MPG, nowhere near perfect, they're misleading, they suck.

The Repubs won't mention how their car is still 20MPG or give any credit to the dems.

What's better, the dems hyping their 10mpg car, or the repubs attacking them for it and offering a 20mpg car?
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
it seems more like the dems are saying "look, our car that got 20 mpg is now getting 32 kilometers per gallon! what a big improvement!"
 

BladeVenom

Lifer
Jun 2, 2005
13,365
16
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
New Democratic car cuts gas usage from 20 MPG to 10 MPG.

Dems: Dem car is the leader on fighting pollution!

Repubs: Dem car pollutes 10 MPG, nowhere near perfect, they're misleading, they suck.

The Repubs won't mention how their car is still 20MPG or give any credit to the dems.

What's better, the dems hyping their 10mpg car, or the repubs attacking them for it and offering a 20mpg car?

A car that gets 20 mpg is better than one that only get 10 mpg.
 

Linux23

Lifer
Apr 9, 2000
11,319
701
126
Originally posted by: RichardE
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: Zebo
Good political gimmick - even intelligent AT guys don't see he's just using big corporate donors who skirt disclosure requirements and it's all symbolism over substance. General public will eat this up too. Thanks to CPA for showing us the truth.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.php?ind=K01

See this is a clear cut case of libs putting words ahead of substance. Not ONE! lib has stepped in here and admitted Barack is being dishonest, or at least not telling the whole truth. Not One, yet there's the evidence. Pathetic.

Except that takes anyone who gives more than 200$ and uses the "occupation" they list down. As such since I work for university when I donated 500$ to Obama and listed my occupation I am now part of that "corporate" influence. :roll:

Your link is faulty.

:D:beer: