Obama biggest recipient of BP cash

[Gidget]

BP And Obama: Playing Internet Gotcha With Campaign Finance Numbers - Swampland - TIME.com

Excerpt: but worth the entire read

...the story wins the Drudge link, but fails to provide the context readers need. It is true that according to this online database Obama received slightly more money from BP's PAC and employees since 1990 than anyone else. But there is a major a reason for that, which the story fails to mention: People who run for President raise much more money, and received much more money from BP interests--and just about every other interest. The fourth highest recipient of BP money in the same time period is George W. Bush. The fifth highest recipient is John McCain. In the 2000 and 2004 cycles, Bush got the most money, albeit less than Obama received in 2008. But then one could adjust these numbers for campaign inflation: campaigns overall raised much less money in the 2000 and 2004 cycles than the record-smashing 2008 cycle. The article presents the money as a largely Democratic problem, highlighting the donations to Obama and Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu at the top of the piece. Much lower down do we get mention of the fact that historically Republicans have taken much more money from BP, but this is buried in the assertion that Democrats have almost pulled even with Republicans in recent years. That's one way of slicing the numbers. Another would be to say that in the last 20 years, BP has given 71 percent of its money to Republicans, and 29 percent to Democrats. (That number is not in the story, which also chooses not to count soft money contributions during the 20-year horizon. If soft money, which was given to party committees, not individuals, Obama would no longer be the top recipient. BP, for instance, gave more than $100,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, far more than the money that went to Obama.) One could also point out that of the top 30 recipients of BP money over this time period, 26 are Republican and only four are Democrats.....

​

Read more: BP And Obama: Playing Internet Gotcha With Campaign Finance Numbers - Swampland - TIME.com
​

 

[Lynnie]

Bottom line is we need Campaign Finance Reform and every dollar needs to be disclosed, proving US Citizenship and that the donor is actually alive and mentally competent. When asked to show the books, every candidate until Obama did. My guess is that people are skeptical of where a record $750MM came from.
Other than that, this story has nothing to uncover. PACs are legitimate. And, the Presidential campaign is a game of raising dollars.

 

[Busta Hustle]

Lobbyist for big oil, auto, finance, insurance, pharma have been writing talking points and LAWS for the party in power for decades if not longer. Have you ever looked at the 26 page list of lobbyist just for the state of Florida? Hundreds of millions of $$$ were spent just in the last 6 months for banking "reform". They shifted funds from cheney to obama so fast it made your head spin when it was obvious that Mccain-Palin was a train wreck. Truly equal opportunity in D.C. Best Guv'ment $$ can buy!

 

[Gidget]

Bottom line is we need Campaign Finance Reform and every dollar needs to be disclosed, proving US Citizenship and that the donor is actually alive and mentally competent. When asked to show the books, every candidate until Obama did. My guess is that people are skeptical of where a record $750MM came from.
Other than that, this story has nothing to uncover. PACs are legitimate. And, the Presidential campaign is a game of raising dollars.

You are right, on all counts.

G

 

[Minnie]

Big business controls America. As to political activity with big business; the players may change but the game remains the same.

 

[TreeFrog]

Bottom line is we need Campaign Finance Reform and every dollar needs to be disclosed, proving US Citizenship and that the donor is actually alive and mentally competent. When asked to show the books, every candidate until Obama did. My guess is that people are skeptical of where a record $750MM came from.
Other than that, this story has nothing to uncover. PACs are legitimate. And, the Presidential campaign is a game of raising dollars.

Perhaps, a major rework of campaign funding is the only real solution. It would apply to every single elected office, local to national. Prohibit any contributions to candidate or party over, say, $250. No independent spending for campaign ads. No soft contributions. Provide each candidate a modest standard package of promotion materials, media exposure, travel budget, etc. at public expense. Require each candidate to submit a clear platform.

In my simplistic view, that would quickly give us "government for the people", not the sad system we now endure at all levels of government.

 

[Em]

Maybe instead of allowing fund-raising for politicians, we should allow them only to have debates in a public forum, broadcast on all media outlets. (I know, borrrrrr-ing, for most people, but we may not get sucked into believing that the rhetoric from stump speeches represents honesty. )

 

[flowerfriendly]

i simply point it out to show people that it doesn't matter which party a politician belongs to. They all take money from the same puppet masters.

this is how the political world goes round and round.

 

[Arkiehawg]

I simply point it out to show people that it doesn't matter which party a politician belongs to. They all take money from the same puppet masters.

Ah Murray.....that will all change once the Tea-baggers get their folks elected this fall. Just ask them....

 

[Teresa]

Maybe instead of allowing fund-raising for politicians, we should allow them only to have debates in a public forum, broadcast on all media outlets. (I know, borrrrrr-ing, for most people, but we may not get sucked into believing that the rhetoric from stump speeches represents honesty. )

or maybe we should just allow corporations to contribute unlimited funds directly to their candidates of choice and just let corporations run everything directly. oh yeah, that is how it is now right?