Transparency - Not!

[classicman]

[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.

[Spexxvet]

Business as usual.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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

[classicman]

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...

[xoxoxoBruce]

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

[regular.joe]

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.

[classicman]

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

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by classicman

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...

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.

[classicman]

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

[Fair&Balanced]

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.

[Sundae]

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.

[classicman]

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

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by classicman

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

Bush bailed them all out. Except GE

I win!

[classicman]

lol -

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

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

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

Goldman was Obama’s biggest campaign contributor ($994,795) in 2008 and before that as a candidate to the Senate. Rahm took in $80,000 from Goldman Sachs as a Congressman and was on a $3,000 a month retainer from Goldman while he worked as Bill Clinton’s chief fund raiser.

Here is a short list:

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