Does Anyone feel like Bailing

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I don't know. There's no software engineers' union.

But if they do, then those employees' contributions would show up as coming from the employer in this type of analysis, making it seem like the views of the union were the views of the company.

HM..if you are a software engineer, your contributions probably are counted as part of the #13 industry group in campaign contributions.

[classicman]

Top 20 recipients:
D - $1,029,434
R - $ 798,223

Ok I'm done now.

Originally Posted by classicman

Top 20 recipients:
D - $1,029,434
R - $ 798,223

Ok I'm done now.

I think it is widely known that more people contribute to democrats than republicans.

And that most are small contributors.

[TheMercenary]

I do believe Obama had record contributions in the last election via on-line contributions.

This was news from Oct 08

The Obama campaign has shattered all fund-raising records, raking in $458 million so far, with about half the bounty coming from donors who contribute $200 or less. Aides say that's an illustration of a truly democratic campaign. To critics, though, it can be an invitation for fraud and illegal foreign cash because donors giving individual sums of $200 or less don't have to be publicly reported. Consider the cases of Obama donors "Doodad Pro" of Nunda, N.Y., who gave $17,130, and "Good Will" of Austin, Texas, who gave more than $11,000—both in excess of the $2,300-per-person federal limit. In two recent letters to the Obama campaign, Federal Election Commission auditors flagged those (and other) donors and informed the campaign that the sums had to be returned. Neither name had ever been publicly reported because both individuals made online donations in $10 and $25 increments. "Good Will" listed his employer as "Loving" and his occupation as "You," while supplying as his address 1015 Norwood Park Boulevard, which is shared by the Austin nonprofit Goodwill Industries. Suzanha Burmeister, marketing director for Goodwill, said the group had "no clue" who the donor was. She added, however, that the group had received five puzzling thank-you letters from the Obama campaign this year, prompting it to send the campaign an e-mail in September pointing out the apparent fraudulent use of its name.

"Doodad Pro" listed no occupation or employer; the contributor's listed address is shared by Lloyd and Lynn's Liquor Store in Nunda. "I have never heard of such an individual," says Diane Beardsley, who works at the store and is the mother of one of the owners. "Nobody at this store has that much money to contribute." (She added that a Doodad's Boutique, located next door, had closed a year ago, before the donations were made.)

Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said the campaign has no idea who the individuals are and has returned all the donations, using the credit-card numbers they gave to the campaign. (In a similar case earlier this year, the campaign returned $33,000 to two Palestinian brothers in the Gaza Strip who had bought T shirts in bulk from the campaign's online store. They had listed their address as "Ga.," which the campaign took to mean Georgia rather than Gaza.) "While no organization is completely protected from Internet fraud, we will continue to review our fund-raising procedures," LaBolt said. Some critics say the campaign hasn't done enough. This summer, watchdog groups asked both campaigns to share more information about its small donors. The McCain campaign agreed; the Obama campaign did not. "They could've done themselves a service" by heeding the suggestions, said Massie Ritsch of the Center for Responsive Politics.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/162403

The Obama campaign has shattered all fund-raising records, raking in $458 million so far, with about half the bounty coming from donors who contribute $200 or less.

Is that bad?

[TheMercenary]

No, but they lack transparency. They refused to release the details.

The system needs greater transparency with more contributions coming via the web.

IMO, its not a partisan issue.

I dont know that either candidate had the capability to be more transparent on web contributions.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

I think it is widely known that more people contribute to democrats than republicans.

And that most are small contributors.

Not that I care, but these are the LARGEST 20 recipients, with a minimum of $20,000.
You don't get to have it both ways.

[classicman]

"Doodad Pro" listed no occupation or employer; the contributor's listed address is shared by Lloyd and Lynn's Liquor Store in Nunda. "I have never heard of such an individual," says Diane Beardsley, who works at the store and is the mother of one of the owners. "Nobody at this store has that much money to contribute." (She added that a Doodad's Boutique, located next door, had closed a year ago, before the donations were made.)

This is the kind of thing that bothers me.

[classicman]

prompting it to send the campaign an e-mail in September pointing out the apparent fraudulent use of its name.

And he waited till when to return the money?

Is there any way to stop this shit from both sides?

I dont know that there is a real solution other than more transparency.

The courts have ruled consistently that campaign contributions generally are "protected" first amendment "right of association"

[TheMercenary]

Which opens them up for a source of contributions by other countries, and large organizations that could hide large contributions broken down into small ones. This is a loop hole to hide who gave what.

[classicman]

Or you could just donate to your husband's charitable organization and funnel the money out of that - just sayin.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by classicman

[color="Red"]
...The D's still got more although I think the amount more is rather insignificant. Perhaps to someone who knows who the specific recipients are, the info would mean more. I even broke it down by amounts and did donations >$500 and >$10,000 The percentages seemed to be about the same as the overall totals.

My conclusion - they were bribing everyone.

That's news? They (corporations) have been doing that for YEARS. They want to make sure that, no matter who wins, they gave money to their campaign, especially to people on committees that will affect their business.

At least Obama is trying to do something about it. The first president in years (maybe ever) to try to stop it.

IMHO, the only way we will ever change the corruption in DC is to end lobbying and have campaigns funded by a public fund. NO donations. And freaking campaigns are out of control. They are already talking about who will be presidential candidates in the next election, and it is 4 years away. Politicians should be spending time working for their constituents, not campaigning constantly. I think a 4 month cycle should be sufficient. TV networks should be required to give equal access to all candidates, because the airwaves belong to the people. Candidates should then have a series of debates (maybe weekly over the 4 month period) so people can see where they stand. No more paid smear campaign advertisements by political parties or PACs. It's freaking ridiculous how much campaigns cost nowadays, and how long they last (neverending). I'm sick of it.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

Top 20 recipients:
D - $1,029,434
R - $ 798,223

Which still makes those 2007/2008 contributions completely irrelevant. USB needed 'deregulation' from Republicans around 2003. 'Deregulation' purchased by buying Republicans so that USB could launder money; for the rich to avoid taxes.