Azazello1313 Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 I want a government that serves the voters more than rich corporations. in light of this comment, i would like to point you toward this article and see how you try to spin it. Democratic senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are the top recipients of donations from the pharmaceutical industry, according to The Center for Responsive Politics, a non-profit, non-partisan research group in Washington, D.C. Meanwhile, donations to Sen. John McCain, who was recently endorsed by President Bush as the official Republican candidate, pale in comparison. Obama maintains a slight edge over his Democratic rival, with $181,000 in Big spam donations through Jan. 31, compared with Clinton's $174,000, according to the center. McCain is far behind with $44,000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driveby Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 Arguing logic with Randall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 A conservative Arguing logic with Randall. fixed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 13, 2008 Author Share Posted March 13, 2008 Arguing logic with Randall. hey now....don't make me send him over to kick your ass again, like he did in JJ's huddle fights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 in light of this comment, i would like to point you toward this article and see how you try to spin it. These are individual donations form people who work within the pharmaceutical industry. They may be driven by the war or the economy. They could see the economy being so bad that people won't be able to afford healthcare and that Obama and Clinton are the only ways to ensure profits....could be many different reasons why....not to speak for Randall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
driveby Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 hey now....don't make me send him over to kick your ass again, like he did in JJ's huddle fights. as if Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 13, 2008 Author Share Posted March 13, 2008 These are individual donations form people who work within the pharmaceutical industry. riiight. so when a bunch of merck executives, as a block, donate the maximum allowed by law...that is just a bunch of individuals inspired by obama's refreshing hope. sorta like how he can take in millions in donations from lawyers at lobbying law firms but say he is not taking donations from lobbyists. i'm sure y'all view it the exact same way when it's the oil industry giving money to republicans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 Obama Clinton McCain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 There are a few things "wrong" with this debate you're opening up az, although it raises some good questions. Instead of raw dollar amounts, what is the overall % taken from "lobby groups" by each candidate. You are right with your "group" of Merck execs being not quite "Individual Contributions" as probably shown in Grunge's draft - but if that is the case then how many candidates did this group max out contributions for to cover their bases? We would need to know that as well. Now, I didn't make the statement that randalulu did and although I agree with it on the surface, the fact of the matter is we'll never get that. Then again, I'm not of the generation that stuck flowers into rifles either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 more info on bundling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 13, 2008 Author Share Posted March 13, 2008 Obama Clinton McCain Obama - $181,000 from big spam Clinton - $174,000 McCain - $44,000 i guess you just don't want to address that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 Obama - $181,000 from big spamClinton - $174,000 McCain - $44,000 i guess you just don't want to address that? Industries throw their money at who they think will win. Not sure what else you are wanting addressed here. The campaign finance system is broken. Anyone who runs for office in order to have a legitamite shot has to get in bed with alot of scummy people. The key is of course how much they let said scummy people influence them in policy decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 13, 2008 Author Share Posted March 13, 2008 There are a few things "wrong" with this debate you're opening up az, although it raises some good questions. Instead of raw dollar amounts, what is the overall % taken from "lobby groups" by each candidate. You are right with your "group" of Merck execs being not quite "Individual Contributions" as probably shown in Grunge's draft - but if that is the case then how many candidates did this group max out contributions for to cover their bases? We would need to know that as well. Now, I didn't make the statement that randalulu did and although I agree with it on the surface, the fact of the matter is we'll never get that. Then again, I'm not of the generation that stuck flowers into rifles either. well, the difference is obama is the one making this a big campaign issue, like he is squeaky clean. when in reality he is playing the game just like everyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 well, the difference is obama is the one making this a big campaign issue, like he is squeaky clean. when in reality he is playing the game just like everyone else. He has said he is taking individual contributions and not money from PACs or lobbyists. That's a start. Read his book. He has a few pages talking about the realities of campaign finance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 well, the difference is obama is the one making this a big campaign issue, like he is squeaky clean. when in reality he is playing the game just like everyone else. Is he lying. Look, I will not vote for Obama...or McCain....I don't have a dog in this hunt. But is Obama lying when he says he has not accepted any money from PAC's or Lobbying firms. He only accepts individual donations. Citizens can donate how they wish.....there is no accountability implied in an individual donation. YOu are trying to make this more than it is....going out of your way actually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 well, the difference is obama is the one making this a big campaign issue, like he is squeaky clean. when in reality he is playing the game just like everyone else. But is his amount of PAC/Lobbyist money equal to the other candidates on a % basis? In other words, how hard is he playing the game? All things being equal, not as hard as the other two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 But is his amount of PAC/Lobbyist money equal to the other candidates on a % basis? In other words, how hard is he playing the game? All things being equal, not as hard as the other two. My understanding is he doesn't accept money from PAC's or registered lobbyists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 I remember the time Az tried to paint Joesph Wilson as a democrat because he gave the max to Gore. A little research showed that he also gave the max to Bush. The max is pretty low. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 13, 2008 Author Share Posted March 13, 2008 Industries throw their money at who they think will help them out if they win. fixed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 13, 2008 Author Share Posted March 13, 2008 I remember the time Az tried to paint Joesph Wilson as a democrat because he gave the max to Gore. A little research showed that he also gave the max to Bush. The max is pretty low. huh, really? you'd think i woulda just taken the more direct route and painted him as a democrat because he was working as an advisor for john kerry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 (edited) Arguing logic with Randall. EDIT Makes sense to fund those you think will win. Whether or not they'll get favors in return remains to be seen. To be honest I'd like to see almost everyone voted out and replaced. I'd like the voters to fire just about everyone, maybe then they'd listen to their constituents. Obviously that's a long shot. There are few that I like. I don't dislike honest conservatives. but those in the White House have little in common with Goldwater or even Ronald Reagan. Or Nixon for that matter. -From the article- Obama, on his campaign Web site, has vowed to repeal the ban that prevents the government from negotiating with drug companies, estimating it could result in savings of up to $30 billion for patients. That is one provision I found amazing. Bargaining with drug companies is something virtually every federal agency does. It's anti competitive and I don't see how any true conservative could like it. Hillary seems to get more funds and probably would give more favors than Obama but we'll have to wait and see. Edited March 13, 2008 by Randall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 13, 2008 Author Share Posted March 13, 2008 But is Obama lying when he says he has not accepted any money from PAC's or Lobbying firms. it sorta depends on the meaning of "is"... Akin Gump is a prime example of how difficult it can be to untangle the knot of corporate interests, big money and politics. Collectively, lawyers at the firm had given Obama almost $65,000 by the end of 2007, although the firm itself didn't give a dime. Lawyers at the firm represent large oil companies such as Lukoil and electronics giants such as Samsung. (Zager mainly represents electronics and telecommunications companies.) As lobbyists, the firm represents, among others, oil giants Exxon Mobil and BP, the agribusiness behemoth Archer Daniels Midland and aerospace titan Boeing. Lawyers at Sidley Austin, a Chicago firm with a robust Washington presence, had given Obama more than $225,000 by the end of 2007, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. One of Sidley's attorneys, John Levi, is on a list supplied by Obama's campaign of fundraisers, or "bundlers," who have raised more than $200,000 for the candidate. Sidley lawyers represent, among others, Citigroup, Merrill Lynch and Owens Corning. They have lobbied for such companies as Honeywell, General Electric, General Motors, Monsanto and MasterCard. Beyond law firms, Obama's bundlers work at companies such as Citigroup and Exelon, which owns ComEd, and at financial services giants Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs. Clinton has tried to tie Obama to pharmaceutical and insurance companies because he has received a large amount of donations from executives there. To that, Obama said in South Carolina, "If you've got a midlevel executive at a drug company or insurance company who is inspired by my message of change, and they send me money, then that's recorded as money from the drug or the insurance industry -- even though it's not organized, coordinated or in any way subject to the problems that you see when lobbyists are giving money." Working as a senior adviser to Obama is former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota. Daschle serves as a consultant to Alston & Bird, a law and lobbying firm. Daschle is not a registered lobbyist, and the firm says he "focuses his services on advising the firm's clients on issues related to all aspects of public policy." this all sorta just points to one of my main problems with campaign finance law in general. you plug one hole, the money is just going to leak out somewhere else. is it a good thing to "take a stand" and say you're not going to take money from lobbyists, then turn around and rake in millions from "bundlers" who work for lobbyist law firms? sorta makes it seem like that whole "principled stand" thing was more for political show than anything else, wouldn't you say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 huh, really? you'd think i woulda just taken the more direct route and painted him as a democrat because he was working as an advisor for john kerry. I would too, if Bush ruined my wife's career. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 it sorta depends on the meaning of "is"...this all sorta just points to one of my main problems with campaign finance law in general. you plug one hole, the money is just going to leak out somewhere else. is it a good thing to "take a stand" and say you're not going to take money from lobbyists, then turn around and rake in millions from "bundlers" who work for lobbyist law firms? sorta makes it seem like that whole "principled stand" thing was more for political show than anything else, wouldn't you say? Well, we have to look at the character and actions of the candidate. I choose to vote for the guy that sponsored and passed legislation that created this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 But is his amount of PAC/Lobbyist money equal to the other candidates on a % basis? In other words, how hard is he playing the game? All things being equal, not as hard as the other two. Certainly agree with that. To get elected in a 2 party system you have to keep quiet about a lot of things you believe in. I'm not defending it, but if Obama spoke out for the Palestinians, something he seems to believe in by past actions, could he get elected? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.