Show me the MONEY!

[smokingman]

Top Contributors to Mitt Romney | OpenSecrets

 

[Darral27]

I have to ask what may be a stupid question. Why are the US government, US dept of defense, and US dept of state listed as donors on a couple of these? Also why all the colleges donating to Obama. Should this not become a conflict of interest once the amounts start getting up there a bit?

 

[Bond 281]

I have to ask what may be a stupid question. Why are the US government, US dept of defense, and US dept of state listed as donors on a couple of these? Also why all the colleges donating to Obama. Should this not become a conflict of interest once the amounts start getting up there a bit?

Well considering how they listed the Armed Forces as well I would have to guess that it's individual members belonging to those branches of government that are contributing.

 

[smokingman]

Well considering how they listed the Armed Forces as well I would have to guess that it's individual members belonging to those branches of government that are contributing.

This.
Those represent private donations by United States military personnel,not donations by the armed services themselves.

Telling that Ron Paul has more military donations than all other candidates combined though.

Three of a kind?
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSVi45vfA6o[/ame]

 

[rambone]

Also check this out:


Geography of donations to presidential candidates


Click to enlarge)

Mitt Romney:


Rick Perry:


Ron Paul:



Rick Santorum:



Newt Gingrich:

 

[T.Lex]

I call BS on the Ron Paul slide in the OP. I cannot conceive of how those Departments of the DOD (and the DOD itself) have the discretionary funds to spend on political donations.

And, if they did, I can't believe they'd spend that little.

 

[rambone]

I call BS on the Ron Paul slide in the OP. I cannot conceive of how those Departments of the DOD (and the DOD itself) have the discretionary funds to spend on political donations.

And, if they did, I can't believe they'd spend that little.

Those number represent a total of individual donors, grouped by their employer.

 

[Garb]

I call BS on the Ron Paul slide in the OP. I cannot conceive of how those Departments of the DOD (and the DOD itself) have the discretionary funds to spend on political donations.

And, if they did, I can't believe they'd spend that little.

Do they realize they're voting to eliminate their own positions? Because that's awesome lol.

 

[T.Lex]

Those number represent a total of individual donors, grouped by their employer.

Citation for that?

I've seen political information in various formats, but I'm not aware of any source that groups by employer. If there is, that would creep me out more than a little.

If someone writes a check to a campaign, I don't understand how the campaign can source that person back to a specific employer. Particularly with small donors like that.

And frankly, if their donation can be tracked back like that, they're doing it wrong.

Edit:
Found "the source" on OpenSecrets.org:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00005906

The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

And more info here:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/include/contribmethod_pop.php

The organizations listed as "Top Contributors" reached this list for one of two reasons: either they gave through a political action committee sponsored by the organization, or individuals connected with the organization contributed directly to the candidate.
Under federal law, all contributions over $200 must be itemized and the donor's occupation and employer must be requested and disclosed, if provided. The Center uses that employer/occupation information to identify the donor's economic interest.

I'm still leery of the sourcing. I can't find the source data.


Oh, and there's this:

Although individual contributions are generally categorized based on the donor's occupation/employer, in some cases individuals may be classified instead as ideological donors. A contribution to a candidate may be given an ideological code, rather than an economic code, if the contributor gives to an ideological political action committee AND the candidate has received money from PACs representing that same ideological interest.

So, if DoD personnel give to the American Legion PAC (I don't know if they have one, but they probably do), and the AL PAC gives to Ron Paul, it gets "sourced" as coming from DoD personnel, rather than the AL PAC.


I think that's a mischaracterization, but... whatever.

 

[mrjarrell]

Imagine my complete and utter lack of surprise that Romney is being backed by the same people who brought us Bush 2 and Obama. They're bought and paid for by the oligarchs. Just hanging out waiting for their next bailout, so they can fund their bonuses.