Does Anyone feel like Bailing

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

One immediate result.....you're not likely to see another K. Street Project ...the Republican blatant influence peddling scheme that was in place for 10+ years wont fly under the new regulations to prevent the revolving door between Congress and lobbyists.

That was another good thing Obama did. But that was hardly a problem isolated to Republickins.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

That was another good thing Obama did. But that was hardly a problem isolated to Republickins.

Both the Democrats in '07 when they assumed control of Congress and Obama in '09 when he assumed control of the Executive Branch adopted tougher and more transparent lobbying standards and standards to close the revolving door between government and lobbyists.

Isn't that change?

So why do you keep insisting that there has been no change?

[TheMercenary]

I never stated there was no change. I only point out that since the Dems took over more than 2 years ago they did not change the way they have done business in Congress and after they left.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I never stated there was no change. I only point out that since the Dems took over more than 2 years ago they did not change the way they have done business in Congress and after they left.

And contrary to your opinion, I pointed out the fact that they did change the way they have done business in Congress and after they left...with the passage of more comprehensive and transparent ethics and lobbying reform.

It may be incremental change, but better than no change at all.

[Happy Monkey]

One thing that I'm always curious about is the connection between political contributions by employees and lobbying-style efforts. I've made political contributions, and had to put my employer on the form, but my employer had nothing to do with it (other than paying my salary, of course). I wouldn't think that my contributions reflect the aims of my upper management, though I could be pleasantly surprised.

[TheMercenary]

HM, isn't that what Unions do?

[Happy Monkey]

I don't know. There's no software engineers' union.

But if they do, then those employees' contributions would show up as coming from the employer in this type of analysis, making it seem like the views of the union were the views of the company.

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I don't know. There's no software engineers' union.

But if they do, then those employees' contributions would show up as coming from the employer in this type of analysis, making it seem like the views of the union were the views of the company.

HM..if you are a software engineer, your contributions probably are counted as part of the #13 industry group in campaign contributions.

[classicman]

Top 20 recipients:
D - $1,029,434
R - $ 798,223

Ok I'm done now.

Originally Posted by classicman

Top 20 recipients:
D - $1,029,434
R - $ 798,223

Ok I'm done now.

I think it is widely known that more people contribute to democrats than republicans.

And that most are small contributors.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

I think it is widely known that more people contribute to democrats than republicans.

And that most are small contributors.

Not that I care, but these are the LARGEST 20 recipients, with a minimum of $20,000.
You don't get to have it both ways.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

Top 20 recipients:
D - $1,029,434
R - $ 798,223

Which still makes those 2007/2008 contributions completely irrelevant. USB needed 'deregulation' from Republicans around 2003. 'Deregulation' purchased by buying Republicans so that USB could launder money; for the rich to avoid taxes.

[TheMercenary]

I do believe Obama had record contributions in the last election via on-line contributions.

This was news from Oct 08

The Obama campaign has shattered all fund-raising records, raking in $458 million so far, with about half the bounty coming from donors who contribute $200 or less. Aides say that's an illustration of a truly democratic campaign. To critics, though, it can be an invitation for fraud and illegal foreign cash because donors giving individual sums of $200 or less don't have to be publicly reported. Consider the cases of Obama donors "Doodad Pro" of Nunda, N.Y., who gave $17,130, and "Good Will" of Austin, Texas, who gave more than $11,000—both in excess of the $2,300-per-person federal limit. In two recent letters to the Obama campaign, Federal Election Commission auditors flagged those (and other) donors and informed the campaign that the sums had to be returned. Neither name had ever been publicly reported because both individuals made online donations in $10 and $25 increments. "Good Will" listed his employer as "Loving" and his occupation as "You," while supplying as his address 1015 Norwood Park Boulevard, which is shared by the Austin nonprofit Goodwill Industries. Suzanha Burmeister, marketing director for Goodwill, said the group had "no clue" who the donor was. She added, however, that the group had received five puzzling thank-you letters from the Obama campaign this year, prompting it to send the campaign an e-mail in September pointing out the apparent fraudulent use of its name.

"Doodad Pro" listed no occupation or employer; the contributor's listed address is shared by Lloyd and Lynn's Liquor Store in Nunda. "I have never heard of such an individual," says Diane Beardsley, who works at the store and is the mother of one of the owners. "Nobody at this store has that much money to contribute." (She added that a Doodad's Boutique, located next door, had closed a year ago, before the donations were made.)

Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said the campaign has no idea who the individuals are and has returned all the donations, using the credit-card numbers they gave to the campaign. (In a similar case earlier this year, the campaign returned $33,000 to two Palestinian brothers in the Gaza Strip who had bought T shirts in bulk from the campaign's online store. They had listed their address as "Ga.," which the campaign took to mean Georgia rather than Gaza.) "While no organization is completely protected from Internet fraud, we will continue to review our fund-raising procedures," LaBolt said. Some critics say the campaign hasn't done enough. This summer, watchdog groups asked both campaigns to share more information about its small donors. The McCain campaign agreed; the Obama campaign did not. "They could've done themselves a service" by heeding the suggestions, said Massie Ritsch of the Center for Responsive Politics.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/162403

The Obama campaign has shattered all fund-raising records, raking in $458 million so far, with about half the bounty coming from donors who contribute $200 or less.

Is that bad?

[TheMercenary]

No, but they lack transparency. They refused to release the details.