Why did you change what I wrote: "Something like 80 pct of Obama's
contributions are less than $100, to "The fact is that 80 percent of his
"individual" contributions are less than $100"?
Or were you trying to say something else?
First of all, what is your source for the data you give below? The
numbers
are different than even Brooks gives in a current editorial.
Second, everybody has to work someplace, and in some industry and for
some company or organization.
Clinton and McCain also raise money from all those categories - just not
as
much.
Why can't McCain raise as much or more money from these same categories,
from numerous small doners?
Third, few of the people in any of those categories, anywhere, had heard
of
Obama a year ago.
Are you saying that numerous small contributors on the internet actually
weren't the main source of Obama's donations over the last year, during
his
rise from obscurity as a freshman Federal Senator?
If so, the press and the people have been lied to and misled - you should
turn your data over to the Federal Election Commission immediately so that
legal action can be started.
That is, unless this is just the usual Swiftboat lying and spinning...
"Nigel Brooks" <nbrooks@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:6cu20cF1ihr5vU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> "J A" <ae@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:j7GdnSV6te31H_TVnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> "D. Spencer Hines" <panther@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:2yeak.300$LE.697@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> June 20, 2008
>>>
>>> Op-Ed Columnist
>>> The Two Obamas
>>>
>>> By DAVID BROOKS
>>
>> Brooks a sly slimy neocon. The only thing he excels at is at twisting
the
>> truth.
>>
>> In the Illinois legislature, "Present" counts as a vote in terms of
>> increasing the number of "ayes" that it takes to pass a bill.
>>
>> In practice there, "Present" means you want to further negotiate/ammend
>> the
>> bill before giving an aye.
>>
>> Campaign finance and public funding came into being to stop the
practice
>> of
>> a small number of big money contributors buying elections and
>> politicians.
>>
>> Something like 80 pct of Obama's contributions are less than $100.
>>
> \
> Surely you don't honestly believe that crap.
>
> The fact is that 80 percent of his "individual" contributions are less
> than $100.
>
> Individual means the common or garden variety of contributor such as you
> or I.
>
> It is also a fact that the top industries sup****ting his campaign have
> bundled the following:
>
> Lawyers/Law Firms - $20, 173, 458
> Securities and Investment - $9, 078,803
> Education - $7, 540,288
> Real Estate - $5,509, 969
>
> Then Cor****ate
>
> Goldman Sachs $571,330
> University of California $466,410
> UBS AG $364,556
> JPMorgan Chase & Co $364,157
> Citigroup Inc $360,304
> National Amusements Inc $322,050
> Lehman Brothers $319,147
> Harvard University $315,624
> Google Inc $309,714
> Sidley Austin LLP $294,445
> Skadden, Arps et al $278,163
> Time Warner $264,977
> Morgan Stanley $260,376
> Jones Day $249,375
> Exelon Corp $236,211
> Latham & Watkins $220,865
> Wilmerhale Llp $220,230
> University of Chicago $219,707
> Microsoft Corp $206,942
> General Electric $206,579
>
> You might wish to ask yourself why he has declined to take public
> financing
>
>
>
> Hint
>
>
> Because he can raise more money from special interests - that why.
>
> Nigel Brooks
|
