Man, I'd love it if the shit that gets said one here were...

Here's the list for Pres Obama, same source. Notice a difference?


University of California $1,212,245
Microsoft Corp $814,645
Google Inc $801,770
US Government $728,647
Harvard University $668,368
Kaiser Permanente $588,386
Stanford University $512,356
Deloitte LLP $456,975
Columbia University $455,309
Time Warner $442,271
US Dept of State $417,629
DLA Piper $401,890
Sidley Austin LLP $400,883
Walt Disney Co $369,598
IBM Corp $369,491
University of Chicago $357,185
University of Michigan $339,806
Comcast Corp $337,628
US Dept of Justice $334,659
US Dept of Health & Human Services $309,956
 
cawacko said:
If a politician being corporate owned really bothered you you wouldn't vote for 99% of the national Democrats either.
Click to expand...

Newsflash. There are some politicians who take political contributions who still have principles. That most are democrat is your problem, not mine.

cawacko said:
Point?
Click to expand...

If you can't tell the difference, you're no more intelligent than SF or Dixie.


Question:

What would politicians do if political contributions were outlawed?

Would you accept a national tax to finance campaigns?

Or would you prefer candidates pay for the campaigns out of their own pocket, resulting in a field of the very, very rich?
 
cawacko said:
So your argument is because Romney raised more corporate money than Obama that Obama still isn't corporate owned?
Click to expand...

His top donors include universities and govt institutions, so he is less corporate owned than Romney would have been.

Having said that, do corporations have too much power? Sure. Talk to the supreme court about that.
 
Howey said:
Newsflash. There are some politicians who take political contributions who still have principles. That most are democrat is your problem, not mine.



If you can't tell the difference, you're no more intelligent than SF or Dixie.


Question:

What would politicians do if political contributions were outlawed?

Would you accept a national tax to finance campaigns?

Or would you prefer candidates pay for the campaigns out of their own pocket, resulting in a field of the very, very rich?
Click to expand...

Who are the 'principled' politicians that pop into your mind first?

Does being less corporate owned than someone else make you not corporate owned?
 
evince said:
Prove that the people the corporations DONT want in office are bougth and paid for by them
Click to expand...

who did Wall Street put in office in 2008.....who's cabinet was stuffed with Wall Street big wigs......who got bailed out.......who didn't go to jail.....
 
Howey said:
Newsflash. There are some politicians who take political contributions who still have principles. That most are democrat is your problem, not mine.



If you can't tell the difference, you're no more intelligent than SF or Dixie.


Question:

What would politicians do if political contributions were outlawed?

Would you accept a national tax to finance campaigns?

Or would you prefer candidates pay for the campaigns out of their own pocket, resulting in a field of the very, very rich?[/QUOTE

In theory it would be great if money wasn't involved in politics but it will never be like that in the real world. I support all donations being disclosed.

I don't support a tax for elections.

In the Senate all our representatives are rich. Maybe not all in the House but most are decently well off.
Click to expand...
 
Everyone should be alarmed by the gap between Obama's campaign rhetoric & how he governs. The kind of hairsplitting on this thread - in the hopes of "proving" that a Dem is somehow less owned - is pretty absurd.

Obama is gone. He is paid for. His actions & deeds reflect this.

It should be a wake-up call for any thinking individual.
 
cawacko said:
Who are the 'principled' politicians that pop into your mind first?

Does being less corporate owned than someone else make you not corporate owned?
Click to expand...

That's subjective. However, off the top of my head, I'd say Bernie Sanders is one of the most respected politicians out there.

Another? Barack Obama, who in 2012 received more than 39% of his donations in amounts of less than $25, while Romney 39% of Romney donors donated the max $2500. (Obama: 11%)

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance


Now. Are you going to answer my question?


Howey said:
Question:

What would politicians do if political contributions were outlawed?

Would you accept a national tax to finance campaigns?

Or would you prefer candidates pay for the campaigns out of their own pocket, resulting in a field of the very, very rich?
Click to expand...
 
George Miller from California bay area. Used to be my rep until I moved. Ellen Tauscher, also from California bay area.

So far, Elizabeth Warren seems principled.
 
Howey said:
That's subjective. However, off the top of my head, I'd say Bernie Sanders is one of the most respected politicians out there.

Another? Barack Obama, who in 2012 received more than 39% of his donations in amounts of less than $25, while Romney 39% of Romney donors donated the max $2500. (Obama: 11%)

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance




Now. Are you going to answer my question?
Click to expand...

I live in a pretty liberal area and I'd think you find pretty strong opposition to the idea that Obama is a principled politician and not 'corporately owned'.

I answered your question in a subsequent post.
 
cawacko said:
I live in a pretty liberal area and I'd think you find pretty strong opposition to the idea that Obama is a principled politician and not 'corporately owned'.

I answered your question in a subsequent post.
Click to expand...

That's because he's not liberal enough for SF residents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top