Wall Street gives Romney lots of love - well money, which is what they love

[Ted King]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/10/17/12...s-its.html

Almost 1/4 of Romney's campaign contributions have come from the financial community. They account for about 1/9 of Perry's total and 1/25 of the campaign money brought in by Obama for his reelection.

[cbelt3]

"Obama had raised about $3.9 million in Wall Street contributions as of the end of September. That’s more than 4 percent of his overall haul so far of $89 million, which dwarfs the GOP field.
"

"But it's all from GOOD rich people, not the BAD ones ! I swear !"

- - -
Politicians. Meh.

[Ted King]

cbelt3 wrote:
"Obama had raised about $3.9 million in Wall Street contributions as of the end of September. That’s more than 4 percent of his overall haul so far of $89 million, which dwarfs the GOP field.
"

"But it's all from GOOD rich people, not the BAD ones ! I swear !"

- - -
Politicians. Meh.

That's like saying, "sure this politician lies constantly but this other politician lied once so they're equally lying politicians".

[cbelt3]

I believe that the statement you're really looking for is:
"The difference between politicians and whores is that a whore will always give value for money."

My point was that, as usual, commentary about who gives money is often missing the fact that money is given to all of 'em. If you're attempting to point out that Romney is in 'the pockets of those Wall Street Monied Elite Bastards", then it's also important to read 'the rest of the story' and note that President Obama's campaign is supping at the same trough.

Oh, less slop, to be sure. And the 'well, he's accepted less money !' argument begs the question of 'so, he's just being rented, not bought ? '

Campaign funding, as a whole, is an ugly, ugly thing in this country. Especially after the SCOTUS saw fit to engender personhood to every .inc around, without applying the same campaign funding limits it applies to persons. Most politicians are corrupted by this process.

[Ted King]

cbelt3 wrote:


Oh, less slop, to be sure. And the 'well, he's accepted less money !' argument begs the question of 'so, he's just being rented, not bought ? '

So since it's the same in kind the difference in quantity makes no difference worth considering? A politician that get's only 4% of his campaign money from Wall Street is going to be just as beholding to them as a candidate getting a quarter of his money from Wall Street?

[cbelt3]

Ted... in my opinion, the concept of a 'little bit' of corruption is like 'a little bit pregnant'.

There *have* been campaigns that famously depended entirely on small contributions. But the money machines seem to work best. I also feel that our extended campaign season causes the huge need for funds. And of course the sending of so many different messages the voter is completely confused by election day.

[DaveS]

Ted King wrote:
So since it's the same in kind the difference in quantity makes no difference worth considering? A politician that get's only 4% of his campaign money from Wall Street is going to be just as beholding to them as a candidate getting a quarter of his money from Wall Street?

Of course another position that could be taken would espouse that "many contributors" of the same ilk (a community) is better than just a few that a candidate might become beholden to.

[RgrF]

Romney is/was a venture capitalist, a son of Wall Street. Why wouldn't they support him?

Is it a scandal that most of the Mormon community is contributing disproportionately to Romney and Huntsman or that Texans and oil interests are doing the same with Perry?

Ron Paul might be the only candidate out there who isn't tapping into special interest money.

[DaveS]

You might find this of interest:
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-actually-rai...30978.html


Despite frosty relations with the titans of Wall Street, President Obama has still managed to raise far more money this year from the financial and banking sector than Mitt Romney or any other Republican presidential candidate, according to new fundraising data.

Consider the case of Bain Capital, the Boston-based private equity firm that was co-founded by Romney and where he made his fortune. Not surprisingly, Romney has strong support at the firm, raking in $34,000 from 18 Bain employees, according to the analysis of data from the Center for Responsive Politics.

But Obama has outdone Romney on his own turf, collecting $76,600 from Bain Capital employees through September — and he only needed three donors to do it.

[Ted King]

DaveS wrote:
You might find this of interest:
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-actually-rai...30978.html


Despite frosty relations with the titans of Wall Street, President Obama has still managed to raise far more money this year from the financial and banking sector than Mitt Romney or any other Republican presidential candidate, according to new fundraising data.

Consider the case of Bain Capital, the Boston-based private equity firm that was co-founded by Romney and where he made his fortune. Not surprisingly, Romney has strong support at the firm, raking in $34,000 from 18 Bain employees, according to the analysis of data from the Center for Responsive Politics.

But Obama has outdone Romney on his own turf, collecting $76,600 from Bain Capital employees through September — and he only needed three donors to do it.

Of course, there is a really glaring issue with the comparison made in the Post article. I wonder if you know what that is and if you do, how you feel about it.