Bailout Seekers Big Campaign Donors?!

[Rogue]

Heard this on the radio coming home. Merrill Lynch and other financials that are in line for bailouts, both the corporations and the employees, are apparently huge contributors to both campaigns right now.

Should I feel violated?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=155850

http://www.care2.com/politics/48037

[Okla-homey]

All I know for sure is Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contributed over $85K to BHO just since he hit the Senate. It's as if he rolled into town, opened his trunk and told them to start filling it. And the former CEO of Freddie Mac ran BHO's VP search committee.

Frankly, I don't know why JSM isn't going wall to wall on ads about that.

[Rogue]

AIG too:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2083881/posts


Campaign Contribution to Congress by AIG
Open secrets ^ | 09.16.08 | Perdogg

Posted on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 7:41:10 PM by Perdogg


Name Office Total Contributions


Dodd, Christopher J (D-CT)
Senate $104,300

Obama, Barack (D-IL)
Senate $45,111

McCain, John (R-AZ)
Senate $41,200

Clinton, Hillary (D-NY)
Senate $36,831

Baucus, Max (D-MT)
Senate $24,750

Biden, Joseph R Jr (D-DE)
Senate $19,975

Romney, Mitt (R)
Pres $19,950

Sununu, John E (R-NH)
Senate $15,950

[Rogue]

All I know for sure is Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contributed over $85K to BHO just since he hit the Senate. It's as if he rolled into town, opened his trunk and told them to start filling it. And the former CEO of Freddie Mac ran BHO's VP search committee.

Frankly, I don't know why JSM isn't going wall to wall on ads about that.

I think it's because his hands aren't any cleaner.
It seems that all of the politicos are bought and paid for.

[Okla-homey]

I think it's because his hands aren't any cleaner.
It seems that all of the politicos are bought and paid for.

That list is the total over a twenty year period. Think about that. That puts BHO's total in perspective. In under two years, he's accepted more bucks than JSM took over the previous twenty.

And that Big Donk Chris Dodd? Chair of the Senate Banking Cmte. that "oversees" the lending shenanigans. Easy to see why they'd stuff Dodd's gullet with payola.

[Rogue]

Homey, I'm really trying to show that this is a shared problem that neither campaign can claim advantage on. If you insist on turning it into a "my guy's not as bad as their guy" thing there is plenty of ammunition on both sides. I advise caution in that strategy because I don't think there's a way to win that.

It's sobering either way, but the take-home-message to me is that these cats just sold everyone who's not a big financial company down the river. Wonder what will happen with all of the foreclosed property and homes the banks now own due to defaults? I know what would happen to my properties if I went bankrupt.

[Rogue]

I mean, is the question really "who took more?" The question should be, can these guys (and gal) make objective decisions about the bailout when they benefit so directly from the bailees? The answer seems self-evident to me.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/financial-services-firms-and-campaign-donations/




But the industry is only Mr. Obama’s fourth largest contributor, while it is Mr. McCain’s third largest.

Mr. Obama has gotten some $370,000 from employees of Lehman Brothers, which has filed for bankruptcy, and members of their immediate families, compared to the roughly $117,000 Mr. McCain has received.

Individuals associated with Merrill Lynch, which agreed to be sold over the weekend to Bank of America, collectively are Mr. McCain’s largest contributor, giving nearly $300,000 to his campaign.



I understand the desire to split hairs here, as the above cut/paste tries to. I just think that misses the point.

[Okla-homey]

Homey, I'm really trying to show that this is a shared problem that neither campaign can claim advantage on. If you insist on turning it into a "my guy's not as bad as their guy" thing there is plenty of ammunition on both sides. I advise caution in that strategy because I don't think there's a way to win that.

It's sobering either way, but the take-home-message to me is that these cats just sold everyone who's not a big financial company down the river. Wonder what will happen with all of the foreclosed property and homes the banks now own due to defaults? I know what would happen to my properties if I went bankrupt.

All I'm saying is $41K over 20 years is a lot less selling-out than $45K over less than two years. Yep, I wish my guy hadn't taken a dime from the bunch of thugs who ran Freddie, but at least he didn't back a truck up to their loading dock for the payola like the freshman Senator from Chicago did.

[Sooner_Havok]

I mean, is the question really "who took more?" The question should be, can these guys (and gal) make objective decisions about the bailout when they benefit so directly from the bailees? The answer seems self-evident to me.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/financial-services-firms-and-campaign-donations/



I understand the desire to split hairs here, as the above cut/paste tries to. I just think that misses the point.

They are all dirty rotten cheats who sold our collective asses up the river. But they are smart, they know we will argue about who's guy is "more corrupt" instead of getting pissed and doing something to them all as a group.

Not a bad idea either. They play us against one-another, and get to continue selling out the American people in the process. Anyone else want to exercise their first and second amendment rights with me?

[Harry Beanbag]

I think campaign finance should be reformed again. Individual and corporate contributions should be limited to zero dollars, no more no less. Candidates won't have hundreds of millions to WASTE on year and half campaigns? So ****ing what.

[Sooner_Havok]

I think campaign finance should be reformed again. Individual and corporate contributions should be limited to zero dollars, no more no less. Candidates won't have hundreds of millions to WASTE on year and half campaigns? So ****ing what.

I could almost get behind that. But then they would demand more money from the gubment, so the tax payers would be having to pay for their damn campaigns.

Speaking of, why the **** are the conventions funded in part by taxpayers?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Homey, I'm really trying to show that this is a shared problem that neither campaign can claim advantage on. If you insist on turning it into a "my guy's not as bad as their guy" thing there is plenty of ammunition on both sides. I advise caution in that strategy because I don't think there's a way to win that.

Dems easily win the "down and dirty" race. They always have, and for you to ignore it this deep into your adult life is, well, very sad for all of us.

[Harry Beanbag]

I could almost get behind that. But then they would demand more money from the gubment, so the tax payers would be having to pay for their damn campaigns.

Speaking of, why the **** are the conventions funded in part by taxpayers?


No, you don't understand. That isn't allowed either. All candidates get a free 30 minute speech on national television in the month before the conventions. Primaries are held the following Tuesday in every state. Then the nominees get another 30 minutes and one real debate in the month before the general election. That is all that is needed.

Edit: With figures up until July, McCain and Obama combined have spent $465 million. It's absurd.

[Sooner_Havok]

No, you don't understand. That isn't allowed either. All candidates get a free 30 minute speech on national television in the month before the conventions. Primaries are held the following Tuesday in every state. Then the nominees get another 30 minutes and one real debate in the month before the general election. That is all that is needed.

Will they be able to run any adds at all?

Plus, I am still ****ing pissed I helped pay for those two ****ing parties!:mad:

[Sooner_Havok]

And by "real debate" do you mean no gotcha ****? A real debate on real issues, not using sound bytes?

[Rogue]

Dems easily win the "down and dirty" race. They always have, and for you to ignore it this deep into your adult life is, well, very sad for all of us.

Not taking the bait this time, RLIMC. Suffice it to say that I'm disappointed in many congresspersons and candidates right now. Too bad there isn't a legitimate Perot/Nader third party type. I might quit straddling the bandwagons and jump onto another option.

[Harry Beanbag]

Will they be able to run any adds at all?


No.

[SCOUT]

I think the campaigns should have to pay a windfall tax on their unusually high revenues over the past year.

[Sooner_Havok]

No.

aight, sign me up.

Can we hook em up to lie detectors during their debates?

[Harry Beanbag]

I think the campaigns should have to pay a windfall tax on their unusually high revenues over the past year.


No kidding. Obama has spent 4x the amount of the Lehman bailout.

[Sooner_Havok]

Not taking the bait this time, RLIMC. Suffice it to say that I'm disappointed in many congresspersons and candidates right now. Too bad there isn't a legitimate Perot/Nader third party type. I might quit straddling the bandwagons and jump onto another option.

Where's Teddy Roosevelt when you need him?

[Harry Beanbag]

aight, sign me up.

Can we hook em up to lie detectors during their debates?


They'll be seated in Electric Chairs so I don't see why not. :)

[Sooner_Havok]

Just thinking aloud here, maybe we could go Roman Republic on these guys asses and lower the salary of senators to $0.00 and elect two presidents.

[royalfan5]

Personally, I prefer knowing who is buying who through publicly disclosed campaign donations rather than trying to figure out out who is bribing who off the books.

[Rogue]

Personally, I prefer knowing who is buying who through publicly disclosed campaign donations rather than trying to figure out out who is bribing who off the books.

There's a good side to knowing. But, when you know that corruption is apparently this rampant, WTF do you do about it?

[royalfan5]

There's a good side to knowing. But, when you know that corruption is apparently this rampant, WTF do you do about it?

Be glad you still better than Mexico. Politics are always going to somewhat corrupt. As long as we can stick in the Top quartile of non-corruptness, I ain't going to bitch too much.

[bluedogok]

Most contribute to both parties since they want favor no matter which party is in office. The ones that only donate big to one party are usually so intertwined that those are the ones to be scared of because they have bought some major influence.

Just like the old quote about watching politics and sausage being made.....

[Vaevictis]

That list is the total over a twenty year period. Think about that. That puts BHO's total in perspective. In under two years, he's accepted more bucks than JSM took over the previous twenty.

:les: John McCain will take on the Washington insiders!@#

[Vaevictis]

Be glad you still better than Mexico.

No kidding. You know it's bad when kids want to grow up to be low level bureaucrats so they can take bribes.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Personally, I prefer knowing who is buying who through publicly disclosed campaign donations rather than trying to figure out out who is bribing who off the books.This has always been the way to conduct campigns, without infringing upon first amendment rights by prohibiting or limiting contributions.

[Scott D]

No kidding. You know it's bad when kids want to grow up to be low level bureaucrats so they can take bribes.

they usually wait until they are in college before they become interested in being low level bureaucrats taking bribes.

[Scott D]

Heard this on the radio coming home. Merrill Lynch and other financials that are in line for bailouts, both the corporations and the employees, are apparently huge contributors to both campaigns right now.

Should I feel violated?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=155850

http://www.care2.com/politics/48037

Welcome to the Corporate Government where Homey swears absolutely nothing is wrong with the system.

[Rogue]

Welcome to the Corporate Government where Homey swears absolutely nothing is wrong with the system.

In fairness...Homey just says it's the best version for us. I don't think he claimed it was perfect. Turns out that I agree with you both. I'm a fickle optimist.

[OklahomaTuba]

McCain tried to fix some of this mess...

In 2005.

http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWFiNDk4OTYwODc2MmI2ZTU0MjQxYjhhYzEzN2ZmMjQ=