Follow the Money $$$ Clinton Bad, Obama Good, Edwards OK

By: relawson
Published On: 7/2/2007 11:21:13 PM

I'm not going to bother doing an analysis of the Republicans -- I'm not involved in their primary.  But don't worry, Republicans sold out long ago.

Here are the facts - you can judge for yourself what it means.

Senator Clinton is the top recipient of lobbyist donations - by far.  She exceeds all candidates, including Republicans.  Here is my source: http://www.opensecre...

Lobbyist Donations:
Clinton: $234,550
Obama: $33,909
Edwards: $10,200

OK, so Clinton is obviously going to owe quite a few lobbyists quite a few favors.  But not so fast - Senator Edwards...by far the top getter among all candidates including Republicans when it comes to lawyers:

Lawyers/Law Firms:
Edwards: $5,029,360
Clinton: $3,016,835
Obama: $2,915,234

And the Computer Industry seems to like Senator Clinton more than any other candidate (even Republicans).  Harris Miller would approve:

Clinton: $264,020
Obama: $207,935
Edwards: $51,250

Even more concerning to me is that the drug companies are the leading donors to Senator Clinton among Democrats (Only Romney is higher).  They are hating on Edwards - I wonder why ;-)

Clinton: $106,200
Obama: $51,950
Edwards: $4,400

The list goes on - but I see a recurring theme.  Lawyers aside, Senator Clinton seems to dominate in industry contributions.  Makes one wonder - who will she represent?  Industry, or working Americans?

Oh, Senator Obama deserves honorable mention.  He leads in donations from the retired, behind Romney.  I didn't realize that "retired" was classified as an industry. 

Obama also leads in small donations.  Good for him.

Here is the the final shameful statistic of donations exceeding $4,600 expressed as a percentage of all contributions:

Clinton: 48% of all donations
Edwards: 16% of all donations
Obama: 10% of all donations

Kudos to Senators Edwards and Obama for limiting the number of big donations - and gaining the support of regular people.  Given these numbers I can't see how anyone can support Senator Clinton.  I'm sure someone will tell me....

Comments



I've never been a fan of looking at numbers like these (blue dawg - 7/3/2007 12:35:10 AM)
The main reason being is that its using the raw numbers vs. a percentage of their take.  If you look at her donations from lobbyists, that's less than 1% of her contributions in the first quarter, same with Computer Industry.  I also have never liked the way that Open Secrets or VPAP classify people's as working for a certain industry without an information about what they do for that company.  These could be the CEOs or they could be the secretary who has a much influence as your or I.

I do have a question for you, when its illegal to give more than $4,600 due to contribution limits, how can someone give more than that?



Good question (relawson - 7/3/2007 7:13:26 AM)
"when its illegal to give more than $4,600 due to contribution limits, how can someone give more than that?"

I don't know.  PAC contributions? 

I'm not sure open secrets methodology is perfect, however the source of the data is the government.  Any imperfection can be fixed by providing the public with better data.  Also, contributions below $200 don't show up because that doesn't need to be reported.  That skews the results.

In any event, there are clear differences between candidates when using the exact same measure.  So even if we don't like the methodology we can clearly see who is getting the most from particular industry groups in comparison with other candidates.  And we can also see who is getting big $$ contributions - which I presume the majority are from corporate interests.



Limits per person, per candidate or pac (Hugo Estrada - 7/3/2007 7:38:43 AM)
So, this means that if you are married, your household can give double the limit to a single candidate. And the limit applies per election, so you can give the limit for the primary and the limit for the general election too.

Just this way, a household can donate 4 times the limit for a single election.

And another way to donate more money is to fundraise on behalf of a candidate. So you max out on your contributions, and then  you pass the hat around, keeping tabs, of course, on all of your influential friends.

Then you can donate to PACs that supports your views and are likely to give the full limit for primary and general election to your candidate.

Most people who can donate in this manner are not the secretaries. If $4K is the limit, that would roughly be 10% of the median income in America. The percentage should be higher after taxes. Most Americans can't afford donating this way.

If one is wealthy, the only way to justify this expense is if it really is an investment. One is buying good will and access to the future office holder.
 



Lawyers for Edwards (Glant - 7/3/2007 12:27:13 PM)
I don't know what any of the numbers mean.  My only comment is that I know several lawyers who have decided to support Edwards.  None of them are doing so because they expect he will be better for the legal profession than the other candidates.  Actually, I think each has his or her own reason.

So I would not be too concerned over that one number.



Why (Gordie - 7/7/2007 9:23:59 AM)
don't you go back to when Bill ran for Gov. of AR after losing the Gov. office. That is when Bill decided anyone in Politics must work with the business community to succeed as a politician, especially to be re-elected.
Then go to his bid for Pres. Corporate money and lobbyist money will show up heavy for him in those years. It helped and put clouds over his presidentcy but he was more successful then any president in recent history in buildng America.
As far as I am concerned there is only one cloud over his head and that is NAFTA. The start of the distruction of the middle class.
Ending; let Hillary take all the lobbyist money she can get to be president. So far the most savy and brightest of them all along with her cunninng and master of the game. And the media and Republicans hate her for it.