Transparency - Not!
 

[quote]President Obama granted plum jobs and appointments to almost 200 people who raised large sums for his presidential campaign, and his top fundraisers have won millions of dollars in federal contracts, according to a new report from the Center for Public Integrity.

In one example, Telecom executive Donald H. Gips "bundled" half a million dollars in contributions to the president for his reelection campaign.

Gips went on to take charge of hiring in the Obama White House and (was later) named ambassador to South Africa. And his company, Level 3 Communications, was granted millions in stimulus contracts for broadband projects. Gips told iWatch he was "completely unaware" of the federal windfall. The company has taken $13.8 million in stimulus money.

The report found that 80 percent of Obama bundlers who raised $500,000 or more for Mr. Obama - many of whom are being asked to do the same for his reelection bid - ended up in "key administration posts," in the words of the White House.

Mr. Obama's decision to reward his donors follows the pattern of his presidential predecessors. But it flies in the face of his campaign promise to reduce the clout of moneyed special interests. The report shows how his bundlers ended up working in the Department of Justice, Department of Energy and the Federal Communications Commission, among other federal agencies, and been appointed to policy advisory commissions.

Read more:

I guess this just is the way it is. I still think it sucks. Don't care upon which side of the political fence you stand.

Business as usual.

People who raised money for him, are people he can trust not to stab him in the back, once appointed.

I hear that.
Ranked by amount of money donated to Mr. Obama in 2008
2. Goldman Sachs, $994,795
6. Citibank, $701,290
7. JP Morgan Chase, $695,132
12. UBS Financial, $543,219
17. Morgan Stanley, $514,881
18. General Electric, $499,130

That's a lot of money...

Yes, but weren't they all playing both sides of the ballot?

Money buys things. That is why people spend money. Do we really think donors who spend 500,000 dollars or more are not buying something?? I don't think these were charitable contributions. I don't think there is anything really bad going on here....it is the way of the world.

@ Bruce - of course.
@Joe - "it is the way of the world."
but its gotta change.

Not disputing the money in politics, but these numbers regardless of the recipient, are a little deceiving in that they include contributions from any employees of the companies, from the CEO to the mail clerk or admin assistant.

Yeh, I know. but the list of names is rather interesting, no?
Notice any trends with those specific ones?

The only trend is that I would guess that many of the above probably also gave a near equal amount to the McCain campaign.

added:
And they probably all gave more to Republican congressional candidates in 2010. They tend to play both sides, but more on those they project to be the winners.

You could easily make a similar list of contributors to the Labour or Conservative Party and match it with the Honours list (people who get letters after their name or knighthoods or peerages from the Queen). All the world around, money buys you privilege. To pretend otherwise is naive.

Politics is politics, power is power. And no-one makes it to the top without a little baksheesh. But there are plenty of people who really are working for the public good and do not have the top of the tree as their intended destination. If more people VOTED for them, we'd all be more satisfied.

@ F&B
Probably - either way the big banks had/have their asses covered, even with all that talk & bluster of reform - Pah!

Bush bailed them all out. Except GE

I win!:p:

lol -

How many people did Obama hire into his Administration from Goldman Sachs after the people gave them bailout money and golden parachutes?

Here is a short list:

http://my.firedoglake.com/fflambeau/...-on-big-banks/

On a related subject.

http://biggovernment.com/tfitton/201...ce-department/

And another!

http://biggovernment.com/dloos/2011/...-complex-case/

The Obama SEC filed a civil action against Goldman Sachs in 2010 and the Obama DoJ is pursuing criminal charges.

What more can it do?

And then hired the same scumbags that were involved? Oh, I guess there is nothing more they could have done than give them all jobs. :rolleyes:

So the SEC and DoJ investigations are not enough?

I get it.

The DOJ has prove itself to be a failed and biased organization. The can't be trusted to carry out Obama's trash. Fact is Obama hired these scumbags into his administration after they got public money. I guess you think that it is ok to do that, I understand your love and devotion to the King.

Oh. I forget that you think Holder is a racist.

Holder is a racist.

The DOJ abandoned its own lawsuit against members of the radical New Black Panther Party who threatened and intimidated white voters on Election Day 2008. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence that white voters were intimidated. Even though a whistle-blower gave clear and convincing evidence in front of a Congressional hearing. Obama ignored it. Holder ignored it. But Obama could bring it upon himself to hold a "Beer Summit" when some idiot professor felt he was above the law. Yea, Holder is a GD racist.

In fact, there was no evidence, other than one guy waiving a night stick, who was led away by police, Which, btw, was conveniently left out of the video that was the basis of the allegations raised by a Republican poll watcher.

There was not one voter who filed a charge of voter intimidation and yet Holder still filed a civil action against the guy that banned him from being at polling places for two years.

Bull shit. The video spoke for itself. SO the DOJ, until Holder and Obama came on scene just wasted all those months building a case? More Demoncratic propaganda. Now you and that racist Holder want to spin it. Laughable.

I know it is pointless to try to discuss this with someone who plays the "racist" card, but exactly what in this video meets the criteria of voter intimidation under the Voting Rights Act?



added:
The charges against the New Black Panthers were downgraded by the Bush Department of Justice:

The decision not to file a criminal case occurred before Obama was even in office.

This means that the case was downgraded to a civil case 11 days before Obama was inaugurated, 26 days before Eric Holder became attorney general, and about nine months before Thomas Perez was confirmed as head of the Civil Rights Division.
http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/...no-major-case/

In fact, the new testing standards in Dayton, OH are a result of the settlement of an employment discrimination case that was initiated by the Bush DoJ.
Does this make Holder a racist as well?

Holder is a God Damm Racist.

We certainly dont want the facts to cloud your judgement.

That would really make you look foolish. :eek:

It's almost never fair game to call racism.

Anytime the Chief DOJ favors one race over another he needs to be called out on it. The Demoncratic supporters are just sticking their head in the sand as they try to make excuses for his bad behavior. I will continue to draw attention to his racism.

When the current AG files the same civil injunction as was the final proposal of his predecessor as in the New Black Panther voter intimidation case, and

When the current AG is simply implementing and enforcing a settlement initiated by his predecessor and imposed by the courts and agreed to by the city, as in Dayton discrimination case...

One is left to wonder who is sticking his head in the sand.

Yep, well, anybody with any sense can see...anti-white racism is clearly the big problem for the US.

Anyone who supports that fool Holder is sticking their head in the sand. Now you want to spin it as "simply doing what his predecessor did" is pure political spin. You can't spin the deliberate racism of the current DOJ.

It should have nothing to do with color. That is the point.

SO, first these people are hired to do the right thing and now they are lying under oath to a Congressional inquiry? I don't think so....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...obe-282218736/

Extremism relies on spreading ignorance and intolerance. That is what we have seen here with the baseless charge of racism given the misrepresentation of the two cases in question - the New Black Panther Party and Dayton. One can disagree with the DoJ actions, but to characterize it as racism is extreme.

The questions remains whether it is out of ignorance or intolerance.

Blatant abuse of power to promote and support the actions of one race over others. Pretty clear to me.

Was it to promote and support the actions of one race over another, or was it to promote and support the actions of one group over another?

In the case of the Dayton officers it was to promote and support the actions of one group over another, based purely on race, not merit.

In the case of the New Black Panthers it was a violation of laws which prevent voter intimidation, in this case white people trying to vote at a generally black dominated area, and not different than the KKK keeping blacks away from voting booths in the South during segregation.

In the case of Dayton, it was enforcing a court-ordered settlement. One can disagree with the law and claim that law is racist but an AG who simply enforces the law is just doing what the court and the law required.

In the case of the NBP voter intimidation, the evidence did meet the standards of the law, given that no voters claimed they were intimidated, thus a lesser civil injunction was applied. Again, acting by the requirements of the law.

added:

Given that Bush's AG Mukasey initiated the employment discrimination case against Dayton and who agreed with the career attorneys over the objection of the Republican appointees in the DoJ in not having the evidence to meet the requirements of the Voting Rights Act for a criminal prosecution in the NBP case, wouldnt that make him the racist?

Racism never the less. It was done because of race and standards were lowered. It ignored merit. That is racism.

Holder and the DOJ illegally withheld documents pertinent to the case. The case was dropped because of the new prevailing attitude that cases not involving "minority" cases were not going to be followed, racism.

Do they pay you to be a shill for the Obama Administration?

Do you have any proof of this new prevailing attitude?

because it really sounds like you're the one being racist right now.

That is the law. Some might suggest it is racist, I would disagree.

But under your standards, why is Bush's AG Mukasey not the racist, given that he was the one who initiated the employment discrimination case against Dayton, not Holder, and he, not Holder, was the one who agreed to the settlement that lowered the testing standards?

Holder was enforcing the court order as required by the law.

Looks pretty bad for ole Holder and the DOJ since Obama took office...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...prss=rss_print

What prevailing attitude. Cases should be taken on merit, not race. Just because a person is white does not mean they can not experience racism. Just because a person is some other color than white does not mean standards should be lowered to ensure that people with less merit are promoted above those who previously met the standards for promotion.

So blame Bush and Mukasey for their actions.

Of course you do, it is your job.


I never said Mukasey was not. I said Holder was, and there is ample evidence that Holder and the Obama Administration pushed the issue to drop any cases that were not dealing with minorities only. That is a huge difference.

Hell, Holder should be brought up on charges if they find out he knew about the ATF gun sales that lead directly to the death of an agent on the border.

Are they still in those jobs?

Your prejudice is blatant and non-productive as is repeating baseless charges.

Hardly baseless charges. They are quite public.

You tell me what prevailing attitude. You're the one who suggested it.

It is not prejudice to ask for equal protection and treatment under the law. Not what we are currently getting from Obama, Holder, and the DOJ.

Read the link and get back to me.

Which link? I asked a simple question about what you classified as a 'prevailing attitude' and then you seemed to back off it.

I think it was Abigail Thernstrom, the very conservative Republican vice chairman of the Civil Rights Commission who said (paraphrasing) hearsay and unsubstantiated allegations from former Republican appointees to the DoJ are hardly evidence of some vast conspiracy within the DoJ.

Yet, those who are predisposed to believe, will believe and take it as fact.

Major fail on your part Shillster....

I am not backing off of it. This is one, you will have to go back through the threads to look up the others.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...prss=rss_print

You all enjoy! Off to cook some steak on the barbie! :D