Track The Lobbyist Money That Bankrolls McCain's Campaign »
Posted By Aidenag 1 year, 4 months ago in News
When it comes to tracking the lobbyists and companies who either work for or have contributed to John McCain's presidential campaign, now you can play the same game Beltway journalists engage in every day from the comfort of your own home!
Read Full Story at mccainslobbyists.com »
3410 Views Share Story 17 Comments Report
Submitted By:
Aidenag
Photographer by day, news junkie by night. My main areas of interest are politics and the environment.
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 39 (view all)
-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned5 Replies
-
-
-
75%
doppich1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Regardless of which of these two "wins," the real winner is the corporations, and the real loser is the public. The FISA vote was a precursor, demonstrating the "unity" of the two parties in placing their owners' interests ahead of the Constitution.
Reply -
airwick1944Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
50%
RickyDawkins1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The following is a transcript of Sen. Barack Obama's speech:
Reply
Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy.
Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.
The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least 20 more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.
Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution -- a Constitution that had at its very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.
And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/18/obama.transcript/ -
60%
RickyDawkins1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part -- through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk -- to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.
Reply
This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign -- to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America.
I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together -- unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction -- towards a better future for our children and our grandchildren.
This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.
I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas.
I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners -- an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters.-
50%
RickyDawkins1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.
Reply
It's a story that hasn't made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts -- that out of many, we are truly one.
Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity.
Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African-Americans and white Americans.
This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either "too black" or "not black enough."
We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.
And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.
On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action, that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap.
On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation -- that rightly offend white and black alike. -
50%
RickyDawkins1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Rev. Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain.
Reply
Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely -- just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice.
Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country -- a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America, a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.
As such, Rev. Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems -- two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.
Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Rev. Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church?
And I confess that if all that I knew of Rev. Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and YouTube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way -
-
-
-
33%
Klarissa1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
. In all, lobbyists reported contributions of $4.7 million to Democrats and $3.3 million to Republicans, the Times reported this week.
Reply
Obama has pledged not to take money from lobbyists, but even within that promise there are loopholes.
His campaign says it steers clear of registered federal lobbyists, but it does take money from lobbyists at state and local levels.
"We know that Barack Obama has raised at least $52.2 million from bundlers, or about 18 percent of his overall receipts," Krumholz said.
In fact, Obama's campaign is offering a chance to meet their candidate to anyone who joins their donor pool.
Obama on his Web site tells visitors anyone who donates any amount by July 31 could be selected to come to Denver, Colorado, to join him backstage at the the Democratic convention.
Also, for what it's worth, the Democratic National Committee has historically been far more reliant on PAC and lobbyist money than the RNC. In 2004, PACs provided about 10 percent of the DNC's total fundraising and only about 1 percent of the RNC's total, according to the CRP. Obama, after he sewed up enough delegates to win the party's nomination, sent word to the DNC to stop accepting PAC and lobbyist donations. -
29%
Klarissa1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
“Individuals who donate either have to check a box indicating that they are not a federally registered lobbyist, or fill out a donor card with a disclaimer that says we don’t accept lobbyist money,” Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said in an e-mail. “For when these voluntary measures fail, we also check contributions against a database and decline or return all contributions from federally registered lobbyists.”
Reply
Despite those measures, only two of the 42 federally registered contributing lobbyists, David Taylor of Weil Gotshal & Manges and Kyle Danish of Van Ness Feldman, reported on their forms that the Obama campaign had refunded their money.
Others say that since their initial donation, they’ve received several fundraising requests.
“I sent a small check,” said Victor Kamber, a lobbyist at Carmen Group Inc. who gave Obama $200 after he had maxed out to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) campaign. “Since then I’ve been heavily inundated.”
Kamber, who is registered to lobby on behalf of Washington Hospital Center and MedStar Health, says he hasn’t received a refund from Obama.
Obama’s “new politics:” same as the old politics. -
-
33%
Klarissa1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/obama_the_pacman.html
Reply
The political committees of just one such entity -- which according to Obama's own website, he "begged" for their support -- dwarf the Vets' $1 million ad buy. According to the Center for Responsible Politics, the Service Employees International Union spent over $9 million during a crucial three month period to help the Big O secure the Democrats' nomination. And not only did SEIU PACs spend money for Obama at a breathtaking rate, they did so in ways that could turn federal regulations governing such expenditures on their ear.
FEC rules require that such so-called "independent expenditures" by political committees be limited to communications, such as the ubiquitous TV spots and newspaper ads to which we have all become accustomed, but SEIU's PACs have paid for such campaign essentials as door-to-door canvassing for Obama, voter identification and registration, and even bus rental and food for pro-Obama rallies.
Obama can hardly claim ignorance of SEIU's free-spending M.O. A September 17, 2007 article in The Atlantic says of Obama,
"he is a longtime friend of Chicago's SEIU Local 880 and worked closely with the union as an organizer and later as a state legislator."
The article says that as he "begged" for their support; Obama told SEIU members,
"I've spent my entire adult life working with SEIU. I'm not a newcomer to this. I didn't suddenly discover SEIU on the campaign trail." -
33%
Klarissa1 year, 4 months ago
-
33%
Klarissa1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-stern/seiu-building-political-s_b_105543.html
Reply
he morning after Senator Barack Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee, he didn't speak to Wall Street. Instead he spoke to more than 4,000 SEIU members, guests and delegates in San Juan, Puerto Rico at the SEIU 2008 Convention.
He spoke to us because he's one of us. He's spent his entire adult life standing with working families. And that's why SEIU members made the decision to stand with him in February--because we know he's the only candidate who will win health care for all, the right to organize, and an end to the war in Iraq. You can watch for yourself the highlights from Senator Obama's speech: . . .
But we're not leaving anything to chance. At our convention this week in Puerto Rico, rank-and-file SEIU leaders made an incredibly important decision. During the first 100 days of the 111th Congress, we're going to dedicate 50 percent of our staff and resources to passing priorities for working families like the Employee Free Choice Act and health care for all. That also means making more than 10 million phone calls to members of Congress, engaging 50 percent of our members, and raising $10 million dollars to hold Congress accountable in 2009.
We already started holding politicians accountable when we helped Donna Edwards, a champion for working families, win her congressional primary race in Maryland. Her opponent, Rep. Al Wynn, was putting corporate interests ahead of working families in his District.
With that race, SEIU members sent a message to every elected official across the country--stand up for the issues that matter to working families or we'll find someone else who will.
As Senator Obama said on Thursday morning:
"Change is building an economy that rewards not just wealth, but the work and workers who create it. It's understanding that struggles facing working families can't be solved by spending billions of dollars on more tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy CEOs. Change is a universal health care plan like the one I'm proud I proposed at an SEIU hospital, a plan that guarantees insurance for every American who wants it."
That's the change SEIU members want, that's the change working families need, and that's the change we're going to win in November.-
86%
hyperbola1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well Klarissa, do you see something wrong with average americans trying to get back the wealth and income that has been stolen from them by neo-liberals ever since the Reagan years (when 40% of Americans lost their savings and became net debtors)?
Reply
Do you prefer that the GOP keep running socialistic welfare schemes for the super-rich and corrupt corporations?
-
-
14%
Klarissa1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/cross_tabs/2008/07/
Reply
The Truth About ACORN
ACORN is a nonprofit group whose goal is to register new voters and other activism efforts to help low income groups. Ostensibly.
Mostly it is a leftist organization that wishes to put more liberal politicians in office. It has been involved in several voter registration scandals for its loose system that actually encourages phony registration because they pay low income people per person registered which provides those workers to submit phony names.
Most recently it was involved in the biggest case ever of voter registration fraud in Washington state. While ACORN and the Washington prosecutors deny that ACORN officials were directly involved, their system of pay per registration only encourages such fraud. John Fund reported on this last year. . . .
Michelle Malkin recently reported on how the federal government is funding this organization. Barack Obama worked closely with ACORN when he was in Chicago and he sent money their way when he served on the board of the Woods Foundation and ACORN is, of course, supporting his candidacy. It's all very cozy. But it's about time for the federal government and ACORN's donors to rethink their support of this organization.-
86%
hyperbola1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I suppose you would prefer to keep sending money to the pseudo-christian pat robertson types to evangelize the world.
Reply
Have any idea how the rest of the world reacts to that?
Bush-sponsored Evangelisation of India
.... Like Adolf Hitler letting loose the II World War upon the world in September 1939, President Bush Jr. has planned, organized and launched a cataract of cultural and religious horrors upon the people of India in the benevolent name of Christian Evangelism which in simple English means violent Religious Expansionism. In its long and chequered history, India has never faced an avalanche of organized religious aggression on this scale and scope, fully backed by the financial resources of mighty America. American evangelical agencies have established in India an enormous, well-coordinated and strategised religious conversion plan. The operation was launched as a Ten Year Plan (1990-2000) in the early 1990s but really gathered momentum only after George W Bush Jr, an avowed born-again Christian, became President of the United States in 2001. Since then, aggressive evangelists have received active support from the new Bush administration in their efforts to convert many sections of Indian society to Christianity. At the heart of this complex and sophisticated operation lies this simple thesis - convert the locals and then give them the know-how and money to plant their own churches and multiply in Christian religious slavery in perpetuity. Here, the words of David Frawley become very relevant: 'Missionary activity always holds an implicit psychological violence, however discretely it is conducted. It is aimed at turning the minds and hearts of people away from their native religion to one that is generally unsympathetic and hostile to it ... Missionary activity and conversion, therefore, is not about freedom of religion'. ....
http://www.crusadewatch.org/index.php?option=com_content=view=663=9 -
80%
hamy1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Did you fight this hard and spew that much venom when the republicans redistricted to try and limit democratic minority voters? I don't remember that. Did you yell and scream when in 2004 republican paid workers prevented people in Ohio from voting? No. I would have remembered that.
Reply
So you, my dear, are a world class hypocrite.
Go stuff your face in W.'s fanny. He misses the kisses.
-
-
100%
Klarissa1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hamy, yes the Republicans have been guilty of voting violations.
Reply
This does not excuse Obama, who has campaigned on "Change" and "We can do it".
The truth is that Obama is JUST a politician like all politicians. That he is after power to promote his socialist programs seems to be more than you can accept without saying something nasty. -
ML2007Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
mimbottComment removed: Hard Banned
-
moneyruleComment removed: Hard Banned
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.