More than 300 major Bush donors have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Clinton and Obama

[wyldwolf]

As senators Clinton and Obama crisscross the country seeking the Democratic presidential nomination and sharply criticizing President Bush, they have been collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars from donors who funded one or both of Mr. Bush's campaigns for the White House.

In the first quarter of this year, more than 150 former Bush donors pitched in for Mrs. Clinton's campaign, while a similar number anted up for Mr. Obama, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission data performed for The New York Sun by the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics.

The motives of those who lend financial support to candidates with divergent views are difficult to assess. For some donors, personal ties to politicians or their top fund-raisers transcend partisan politics. Executives at businesses susceptible to government regulation regularly straddle the field, even supporting multiple candidates in the same race. Some contributors find that their politics change over time or that the politicians they formerly supported failed to follow through on their promises.

On occasion, donors aim to undermine a politician they oppose by supporting a rival they also oppose but view as less of a threat. In 2004, an independent presidential candidate, Ralph Nader, got a wave of large donations from die-hard Republicans who seemed to believe that his presence in the race could siphon support from Mr. Bush's Democratic opponent, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts.

http://www.nysun.com/article/53420

[Colobo]

1. The future is on our side.

[rinsd]

8. The writing is certainly on the wall (nt)

[leftchick]

2. well that speaks volumes

damn, I guess you pay to play for either party.

[AX10]

3. Some are sincerely angered at Bush and his radicalism.

Many others don't want to be left out in the cold. When the Dems took the congress last fall, many business people scrambled and still are doing so to find lobbyists that will deal with the Democratic majority. Norquist's K-Street project is in shambles and Wall Street knows it. They don't want to be left out in the cold.

[youngdem]

4. Nothing here really at all. MANY major donors play both sides equally

because in the past, backing one horse was a bad idea. Now, MOST major companies and lobbyists give to both nearly equally with a slight weight to the favorite, then once the elections are over, shower the party in power with gifts.

All this shows is that Hillary and Obama are competitive and that major donors are not surprisingly hedging their bets to protect their interests.

[jwirr]

5. I am not sure that comforts me.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

6. Good use of their tax cuts?

Perhaps they're hoping for more.

[Czolgosz]

7. Richardson had a big Repub fund-raiser and the reaction here was "no big deal."

It seemed odd to me at the time that a Democratic candidate would not just have a few Repub contributors but would have a Repub fund-raiser hosted by Repubs and attended by Repubs where the Democratic candidate would say "that he was a pro-business moderate Democrat who was running in the center and would not be swayed" or "liberalized" by the primary process. Here's a report from a lonely Democrat who got a pass into Richardson's Repub fund-raiser:

I had the opportunity to attend a majority Republican fundraiser, with some Democrats too, for New Mexico Governor and Democratic Presidential candidate Bill Richardson in Arlington Friday night. The minimum to get into this event was $500, so I have a good friend with the Mid-Cities Democrats to thank for getting me in, and I'm really glad that she did because I walk away highly impressed.

As mentioned above, this was a majority Republican fundraiser; I never really figured that out even though I was getting odd stares with my Mid-Cities Democrats badge and my donkey pin on my coat. What gave it away was first, the host actually said so, and second former congressman Barry Goldwater Jr. was in attendance. Shows you the bi-partisan appeal that Richardson has.

***

Shortly after the governor arrived tornado sirens went off and the host of the fundraiser asked us to move to his storm shelter. So there I was following the host, practically leading by hand Gov. Bill Richardson to the storm shelter as he was standing next to me when the order came through. Let me paint the picture of this storm shelter folks because if you are going to be hit by a tornado let it happen as you relax in the confines of this secure establishment. We were led downstairs to a marble floored, plush furniture filled, antique desk decorated, wall to ceiling fireplace room, which overlooked a gorgeous view of the pool currently being hammered by hail and falling branches. As everyone arrived downstairs the owner sealed the room with storm shutters so we were ignorant of the monsoon taking place from that point forward. To my right was a full bar, a little farther back behind me was a guest bedroom, behind the bar was a full kitchen complete with a wine cellar. Considering there was no more then 25 at this event, I felt comfortable knowing if I were to die from a tornado at this point how cool it was that I'm with a Democratic presidential candidate, surrounded by an abundance of liquor, and all the food I could ever want. The downside was it was also a room full of Republicans, so indeed a precious balance of dying happy and dying with political enemies.*** He noted numerous times that he was a pro-business moderate Democrat who was running in the center and would not be swayed. He said he will not be liberalized by Iowa or New Hampshire, and instead, is betting on states like Texas, with our likely move to February 5, as a delegate grab which will keep him in top tier contention. Expect to see him traveling our state more often then any other, for money no less, but taking advantage of the over 40% Hispanic population too in the hopes they get out and vote for him.

http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3262

Generally, the reaction here was no big deal, and I'd rather the Repubs give their money to Richardson than any Repub candidate so I guess it's just another day in paradise.

[rinsd]

10. I really don't see it as a big deal either.

"I'd rather the Repubs give their money to Richardson than any Repub"

Me too.

I also don't regard a campaign donation as a defacto quid pro quo.

[illinoisprogressive]

30. I had not heard about that. I like Richardson. He is my #2 pick after Obama

[Czolgosz]

31. He's my #6 pick after Obama/Edwards (tied), Kucinich, Dodd, and Hillary. I'm no Biden fan and Gravel

has got crazy ideas on taxation and social security.

But Richardson (and even Biden or Gravel) are 1,000 times better than even the best of the goblins running for the Repub nomination.

[AtomicKitten]

9. it is not uncommon for donors to support those they feel

are destined to win -- this upcoming election is the Dems to lose

I fully expect, of course, this factoid to be misconstrued as nefarious and turned
into yet another cudgel used against some of our own candidates.

[ulysses]

11. not against candidates,

but very possibly against the hypocrites who screeched for so long about Nader taking Republican money but justify Dems doing the same. :D

[wyldwolf]

12. Nader was given money by the GOP to defeat a Democrat in a general election

[ulysses]

13. and HRC and Obama are being given money by GOP contribs

because they're nice people, I suppose.

[wyldwolf]

33. ..because they're better choices in the general

[ulysses]

37. based on what criteria?

Electability? Policy? What makes a big-time corporate donor decide who the best choice in an election is, and what are Clinton and Obama it?

[AtomicKitten]

14. many corporations are apolitical

Executives at businesses susceptible to government regulation regularly straddle the field, even supporting multiple candidates in the same race. Some contributors find that their politics change over time or that the politicians they formerly supported failed to follow through on their promises.

Ralph taking GOP money to defeat Democrats is an entirely different matter.

[ulysses]

16. and hooray for the corporate purchasing of candidates!

:thumbsup:

[AtomicKitten]

17. their money is as good as yours or mine

You, however, are attempting to use this as a cudgel against the Democratic candidates.

I realize it's tough to see clearly through those rose-colored glasses, but perhaps the truth lies in the fact that you just maybe don't really support the Democratic Party after all.

Good luck on all that cliched blustery brow-beating. :thumbsup:

[ulysses]

19. indeed it is.

They have so much more of it, though.

but perhaps the truth lies in the fact that you just maybe don't really support the Democratic Party after all.

Because corporatism bothers me? Believe what you like.

Good luck on all that blustery brow-beating.

And the same to you. :thumbsup:

[AtomicKitten]

20. it is so awesome to be lectured by a someone

... who thinks Ralph taking money from the GOP to defeat Democrats is perfectly fine, but corporations changing allegiance and supporting Democrats is horrible.

Your rationalization of corporate donors is, um, well, let's just say revealing.

[ulysses]

21. put words in others' mouths much?

Besides, it's not corporate "allegiance" to support Dems on the upswing. It's an outright purchase of the most valuable asset available.

[AtomicKitten]

22. Tell us again about what a honorable man of integrity Ralph is

and how it was perfectly fine to take GOP money to defeat Democrats.

Oh, yeah, and the one about how there is no difference between Gore and Bush.

The anti-corporate argument is drowned out by that which resonates, and that is if you don't win you don't govern, and all this purism talk about donor money becomes a moot issue.

I gladly throw my lot in with the Democrats any day of the week.

[ulysses]

34. what amuses me

is being lectured about party loyalty by someone who rationalizes as "allegiance" the actions of corporate donors who either hedge their bets by donating to both parties at the same time or simply donate to whoever looks like they're going to win.

[AtomicKitten]

35. what amuses me

... is someone that doesn't appear to understand the ever-changing allegiances translate into donor dollars - nothing more nothing less - but I think is kinda cranky that those donor dollars aren't flowing Dennis' way.

[ulysses]

36. who said anything about Dennis?

You're looking for IndianaGreen, downthread. I am a Kucinich supporter, but I hardly expected corporate cash to be flowing his direction. I'd be worried if it was. :D

is someone that doesn't appear to understand the ever-changing allegiances translate into donor dollars - nothing more nothing less

You do understand that those "nothing more nothing less" donor dollars come with the expectation of return favors, right? It's called "buying influence".

[AtomicKitten]

38. expectation does not translate into reality

I fully understand what you are getting at here, but my point is that corporations are apolitical in their opportunism and what they expect does not necessarily translate into what they receive in return for their donations.

I think you would agree this is certainly more true of Democrats than Republicans, the latter having no qualms about doing the bidding of corporations in daylight. And until across-the-board campaign finance restrictions are effected, I have no problem with the Dems lapping up some of the $$$ floating around.

[ulysses]

39. not necessarily, no. (edited)

I remember a Molly Ivins report of a quote from some crusty old Texas Dem (I think) to the effect that the essence of politics was to drink their whiskey, dance with their women, take their money and vote against them anyway. Funny, but I suspect pretty rare. You generally dance with them what brung ya, as they say.

I think you would agree this is certainly more true of Democrats than Republicans

In roundabout ways, perhaps. Corporate executives may not be the most democratically-minded fuckers in the world, but they aren't generally stupid and aren't going to throw money too often at politicians who don't do their bidding. Democrats as a group tend to get less money from corps (IIRC), in part because we still have some candidates and officeholders who don't want to be beholden to them. On the other hand, one is hardly surprised at Senator Clinton receiving large donations from corporations that have backed Bush in the past because, while the parties are not the same, the free trade leanings of the Clintons certainly intersect with free-range capitalist Republicans and the interests of big business. The quid pro quo is continued support for NAFTA and other FTAs.

...edited to add...

And until across-the-board campaign finance restrictions are effected, I have no problem with the Dems lapping up some of the $$$ floating around.

I'll certainly agree that we need CF reform with teeth, but tend to believe that that isn't going to happen until our party breaks its dependence on corporate donations long enough to buck the corporations whose power campaign finance reform would necessarily diminish.

[AtomicKitten]

40. I miss Molly Ivins.

"So keep fightin' for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don't you forget to have fun doin' it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin' ass and celebratin' the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was."

[ulysses]

41. yeah, I do too.

[rinsd]

18. Yes. We should all send Ralph an apology.

Dear Ralph,

I am sorry, you douchebag. It was perfectly inline with your destructive Presidential run to accept GOP money and help get Bush elected. I am sorry for being critical of your accepting this blood money. May you rot in hell.

Love,

rinsd

[Gloria]

15. I'd expect it of Clinton, but it raises more suspicions for me about

Obama and all his "kum ba ya" talk.... Sorry if I spelled that wrong....

[Colobo]

24. He has never said he won't take money from a Republican

Or has he?

[IndianaGreen]

23. The OP gives weight to the argument that we should support Dennis Kucinich

Dennis believes in marriage rights for gays, unlike Hillary or Obama, and he supports a complete and prompt withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, without a residual force or leaving bases behind (unlike Hillary and Obama).

[Colobo]

25. If the 08 race was between

Ronald McDonald and Dennis Kucinich, Ronald wins by a landslide.

[IndianaGreen]

26. People get the government they deserve!

If we act like stupid fools at the voting booth by picking an "American idol" instead of someone that will do what we want done, we will invariably end up electing establishment figures whose only goal is to advance the interests of the ruling class.

[Colobo]

27. I wouldn't vote for Kucinich

because his vision of the world is not even close to mine.

[IndianaGreen]

28. Kucinich's vision is the closest to mine. Capitalism must die!

Although Dennis is far from being an American version of a Bolivarian revolutionary, his world vision is closest to mine.

We are still facing the same choices that Rosa Luxemburg faced, socialism or barbarism. Americans have repeatedly chosen barbarism. If there is any good that comes out of the horrible years the Bush regime was in power is that Bush, more than any other political leader, has exposed the brutality of capitalism for the whole world to see. Long standing American litanies about "freedom and democracy" have been shown for the empty slogans that they are.

Published on Monday, April 30, 2007 by CommonDreams.org

Anti-Capitalism in Five Minutes or Less

by Robert Jensen

We are told, over and over, that capitalism is not just the system we have, but the only system we can ever have. Yet for many, something nags at us about such a claim. Could this really be the only option? We’re told we shouldn’t even think about such things. But we can’t help thinking — is this really the “end of history,” in the sense that big thinkers have used that phrase to signal the final victory of global capitalism? If this is the end of history in that sense, we wonder, can the actual end of the planet far behind?

We wonder, we fret, and these thoughts nag at us — for good reason. Capitalism — or, more accurately, the predatory corporate capitalism that defines and dominates our lives — will be our death if we don’t escape it. Crucial to progressive politics is finding the language to articulate that reality, not in outdated dogma that alienates but in plain language that resonates with people. We should be searching for ways to explain to co-workers in water-cooler conversations — radical politics in five minutes or less — why we must abandon predatory corporate capitalism. If we don’t, we may well be facing the end times, and such an end will bring rupture not rapture.

Here’s my shot at the language for this argument.

Capitalism is admittedly an incredibly productive system that has created a flood of goods unlike anything the world has ever seen. It also is a system that is fundamentally (1) inhuman, (2) anti-democratic, and (3) unsustainable. Capitalism has given those of us in the First World lots of stuff (most of it of marginal or questionable value) in exchange for our souls, our hope for progressive politics, and the possibility of a decent future for children.

In short, either we change or we die — spiritually, politically, literally.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/30/865/

[illinoisprogressive]

29. Part of the game is getting voters to cross to the other side...good job you two.

There is a great profile of Obama in the New Yorker and they said there a several chapters across the nation of republicans for Obama. This is great because he is getting people to come over to our side.
Who says he isn't electable...

[GreenTea]

32. The republicans want either of them to run...as does the republican media

who continues to shove them down our throats day after day moderates who the republicans are doing everything to get one of them the nomination and just like good little television easily led sheep just are picking one of them...these are the dumb in my opinion, the ones who have never read about each candidate platforms voting records, who have never been to Kucinich or Edwards sites cant tell you what policies they don't like about either...but want Hillary or Obama because they think they are celebrities, superstars....They like moderates, and don't understand how it was the true hard core liberals like FDR who fought for all the things workers have today and the same rights they take for granted that we are rapidly losing...these past hard core liberal progressives knew we were formed as a liberal country ....While these people want to vote for who's the most popular get nothing too liberal done and who they see shoved down our throats day after day after day, this makes sense to them...well they are the most popular so why not...and the republican are doing all they can to support them with money and even good words, as is the republican owned media and the moderate DLC! If you have enough money you can run enough ads these people will eat it up. Oh they will all scream and say they like or really know their records and this or that...but its just more moderate bullshit...afraid to step over to real liberalism...these are fence sitters, who might even have voted or could vote for a republican if they were a good candidate...how would they know by television ads who has more money to run more of them and convince them...they dint have a clue about what ideology is all about...they vote the candidate...They just don't get it, they do not or refuse to see the manipulation...they'll yell, scream and insult and say wrong...They lack perception.