Obama has more cash from financial sector than GOP hopefuls combined

[Meeker Morgan]

The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-has-more-cash-from-financial-sector-than-gop-hopefuls-combined-data-show/2011/10/18/gIQAX4rAyL_print.html

'nuff said?

[mucifer]

1. Oh crap! nt

[JTFrog]

2. "more money from employees of banks, hedge funds and other financial service companies"

As the article points out: "As a result, Obama has brought in more money from employees of banks, hedge funds and other financial service companies than all the other GOP candidates combined, according to a Washington Post analysis of contribution data."

It also points out: "This fundraising edge might seem counterintuitive in light of Obama’s thorny relations with business groups and Wall Street executives, who strongly opposed his financial reform law and have bristled at proposals to close corporate tax loopholes and raise income taxes on millionaires. In fact, he has raised just $3.9 million from the finance sector for his campaign committee itself, aside from the DNC, compared with Romney’s $7.5 million."

[AtomicKitten]

23. +1

also:

Obama’s key advantage over the GOP field is the ability to collect bigger checks because he raises money for both his own campaign committee and for the Democratic National Committee, which will aid in his reelection effort.

[ProSense]

3. What kind of analysis

is WaPo doing?

From the article:

In fact, he has raised just $3.9 million from the finance sector for his campaign committee itself, aside from the DNC, compared with Romney’s $7.5 million.

How is that more?

The piece links to the Center for Responsive politics. Here is their report: As Presidential Candidates Seek Finance Sector Money, Wall Street Donors Flock Most to Mitt Romney

<...>

Romney has received nearly twice as much as Obama from the finance, insurance and real estate sector, according to the Center's preliminary analysis. Still, Obama has raised about $3.9 million from the FIRE sector -- about 4.4 percent of his overall $89 million war chest.

<...>

Furthermore, Romney has received more than twice as much as Obama from the securities and investment industry, according to the Center's research, and nearly 10 times as much from Wall Street interests as Perry.

Additionally, Romney has also collected about twice as much as Obama from commercial banks -- and more than three times from these interests as much as Perry. Romney has raised $523,250 from commercial banking interests, while Obama has raised $254,250 and Perry has raised $161,400.

The securities and investment industry alone accounts for $1 out of every $9 Romney has raised: more than $3.56 million. Meanwhile, Obama has collected about $1.6 million from Wall Street interests -- less than 2 percent of his overall fund-raising haul. And Perry has received about $375,300 from these interests, according to the Center's research. That's about 2.2 percent of his total war chest.

<...>

Here's the chart

[JTFrog]

10. Pretty obvious what kind.

Let the foaming at the mouth begin.

:shrug:

[karynnj]

11. Interesting that open secrets was the gold standard when it worked against Obama -

I hope some people with knee jerk responses to the WP headline might look at your chart or the Center for Responsive Politic's article.

[Number23]

25. ***Wall Street Donors Flock Most to Mitt Romney***

Just thought I'd help you out, Pro. Just in case someone thinks this deliberately misleading OP is the truth.

'As Presidential Candidates Seek Finance Sector Money, Wall Street Donors Flock Most to Mitt Romney'
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/10/mitt-romney-wall-street-money.html

[Sheepshank]

51. here, allow me to clarify the chart

:rant:
The attempt of the op doesn't match the reality of the chart.

[Cali_Democrat]

4. This is why the American people need the OWS movement so badly

Both parties are beholden to Wall Street and the American people end up getting the short end of the stick time and time again. A grassroots uprising like OWS can really make a difference because they speak for the vast majority of the American people. OWS doesn't speak for the rich, privileged and well connected. They don't speak for the 1%. That's why the corporate media has been savagely attacking the OWS protesters.

[woo me with science]

55. +1000000

Nobody would have predicted OWS after the 2008 election. People thought that, at long last, they would have representation in the White House.

If people still believed that - if they had any hope left that this administration was working for their interests - none of these protests would be necessary.

[NorthCarolina]

5. So, apparently if enough folks unrec this info, that makes it go away?

Can someone explain the logic behind the unrecs on this OP? I'm curious what the thought process, and goal(s), might be.

[great white snark]

7. Or they actually read the article and concluded it's bullshit.

They counted DNC money as Obamas'

[karynnj]

9. No it does not go away, but it might help TO ACTUALLY READ THE ARTICLE

It is not a fair analysis to add Obama and the full amount raised by the DNC and compare it to the individual Republicans.

[Number23]

26. It's a dishonest article that only people with no math skills and no concept of reality

will find useful. Does that answer your question?

[Tarheel_Dem]

38. Thanks for the reminder. I actually forgot to Unrec this liefest.

'nuff said? :rofl:

[karynnj]

6. They counted DNC money in addition to Obama campaign money

Note that you can give more to the DNC (or RNC) than to an individual campaign. The fact is the DNC does not directly support the President's campaign - and, by the fall, the RNC will, of course, be supporting Republicans.

This is really irresponsible analysis.

[ProSense]

12. Exactly. In fact,

if you look at the total to Republican Presidential candidates, it's almost three times as much as to President Obama:

Mitt Romney ..........$7,521,705
Rick Santorum ..........$154,500
Rick Perry .............$1,961,535
Jon Huntsman ..........$400,723
Newt Gingrich ..........$188,000
Michele Bachmann ......$186,878
Herman Cain ............$129,416
Ron Paul ................$288,507
Total ................$10,831,264

Barack Obama .......$3,899,122

[Cali_Democrat]

13. So

"Barack Obama .......$3,899,122"

...other than Mitt Romney, Barack Obama has raised more Wall Street cash than any other GOP candidate.

[ProSense]

14. So

"...other than Mitt Romney, Barack Obama has raised more Wall Street cash than any other GOP candidate."

...is the OP title accurate?

"Obama has more cash from financial sector than GOP hopefuls combined"

[Cali_Democrat]

15. Well

"Obama has more cash from financial sector than GOP hopefuls combined"

...It's ambiguous. If the article specified that the Obama campaign committee itself raised more money, then it would definitely be inaccurate. However, the article did not say that.

From the article: "he (Obama) raises money for both his own campaign committee and for the Democratic National Committee, which will aid in his reelection effort."

[ProSense]

16. And

"Obama has more cash from financial sector than GOP hopefuls combined"

...It's ambiguous. If the article specified that the Obama campaign committee itself raised more money, then it would definitely be inaccurate. However, the article did not say that.

From the article: "he (Obama) raises money for both his own campaign committee and for the Democratic National Committee, which will aid in his reelection effort."

....it's still utterly disingenuous and inaccurate.

So unless someone is trying to use spin against the President, this article is complete bullshit.

[Cali_Democrat]

17. Are

"it's still utterly disingenuous and inaccurate."

...the Republican candidates raising money for the RNC like Obama is raising money for the DNC? If they are, then the article should include those numbers in the tally.

[ProSense]

18. It's

"it's still utterly disingenuous and inaccurate."

...the Republican candidates raising money for the RNC like Obama is raising money for the DNC? If they are, then the article should include those numbers in the tally.

...still bullshit. Even you accepted WaPo's disingenuous frame, Obama and the DNC raised $2 million less than the GOP candidates and the RNC.

Overall, the Democratic Party, including the President, raised nearly $10 million less from the sector than the Republican Party, including the candidates.

It's bullshit.

[Cali_Democrat]

19. Does

"even you accepted WaPo's disingenuous frame, Obama and the DNC raised $2 million less than the GOP candidates and the RNC"

...Obama specifically raise money for the DNC? Are the Republican candidates raising money for the RNC like Obama is raising money for the DNC?

[karynnj]

22. Since when does the President get credit for what the DNC raises?

The title is patently dishonest as the most reasonable interpretation from anyone just reading the headline is that Obama raised all of that in his own campaign.

Not to mention, it is not unusual for a Presidential nominee to get this many contributions from people in those industries without any strings attached - or the President even knowing who sent in how much. Every time ANY industry comes up, you will find that some people employed in that industry have donated to Obama .. or Romney. That is their right.

Should the President be limited to just people who are unemployed, retired, or students (which will severely limit contributions) - or some list of industries you approve of?

[Cali_Democrat]

27. From the article:

"Obama’s key advantage over the GOP field is the ability to collect bigger checks because he raises money for both his own campaign committee and for the Democratic National Committee"

[karynnj]

32. I know the article said so - and that is what some of us disagree with

- especially as nothing similar is done on teh republican side, though the top Republicans have their leadership PACs and some have other groups related to them.

[Sheepshank]

52. so how about the MSM and you find out how much total

the finance sector has given to R candidates and to the RNC...maybe then the number would be a tad more comparable.

You seem to be perfectly happy knowing and using both individual and DNC figures as an Obama snipe item....why not do the same for R candidates and RNC?

[icnorth]

45. The banksters don't back the other GOP candidates

because they are looking for a good "return" on their investment and Ricky and Ronnie et al don't make the "A" list.

[ClassWarrior]

35. The DNC does not directly support the President's campaign??! So OFA no longer...

...has anything to do with the President? Because last I looked, the DNC and OFA had merged.

:shrug:

NGU.

[Deep13]

8. I wonder how much anonymous donations to RW groups alter that picture. nt

[NYC_SKP]

20. Nope, my data indicates Perry and Mitt have double the funding from the financial sector.

No cigar.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/FinanceMoneyOct2011.bmp

:patriot:

[bhikkhu]

21. That won't jeep the OP from being repeated ad infinitum

...I think its well established that lies are ok, as long as they're about the president.

[JoePhilly]

53. You nailed it.

[AtomicKitten]

24. 'nuff said? Apparently not.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x801570

[totodeinhere]

28. The article counts DNC money in on that total, whereas is doesn't count any RNC money since

they don't have a presidential candidate yet. Once things shake out and they start counting donations to the RNC from Wall Street look for the GOP nominee's fund raising numbers from Wall Street to be much larger than Obama's.

So is this good news or bad news? I don't know. It may show that Obama is not in Wall Street's pocket as some people allege. Yet if the Republican candidate is getting millions more in contributions from Wall Street then from the standpoint of funding the campaign that obviously is not so good.

[Tarheel_Dem]

29. Big Old FAIL! I think the author of "Small Donors Slow to Return to Obama Fold"...

must be working in concert with this one. Distortions & outright lies. The people who write these hitpieces depend on folks like you to disseminate this crap, and cross their fingers that no one digs beyond the provocative headline. By all means, let's keep helping to create false narratives. Congrats to you!

'nuff said? :rofl:

[AlinPA]

30. The republicans will get billions from the corporations and PACs later since

there is no limit how much they can give because of the Citizens United SC ruling.

[SidDithers]

31. Unrec for deliberately misleading OP...nt

Sid

[LittleBlue]

33. This is not a democracy

When financiers can buy both parties, this cannot possibly be democratic.

Our representatives are supposed to represent us, not banks.

[pauldg0]

34. Occupy Washington Post.....

......NOW !!!!!

[woo me with science]

36. You know what? They both are rolling in money from Wall Street.

That is the point, folks. Wall Street buys both parties, and we have nowhere to turn.

This crap over who has a little bit more is pointless. They both have TOO MUCH.

[ProSense]

37. Actually

"That is the point, folks. Wall Street buys both parties, and we have nowhere to turn. This crap over who has a little bit more is pointless. They both have TOO MUCH."

...no!

Romney takes money from lobbyists and PACs, and only 10 percent of Romney's total comes from small donors.

A bankteller is not the same as a lobbyist.

Getting the money out of politics is important, but making the above equivalency is similar to claiming that all outside groups are the same, whether operated by the unions or Rove.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

41. Keep ignoring the facts within the WaPo article, which contradicts the shit-stirring OP headline.

From the article:

"In fact, he has raised just $3.9 million from the finance sector for his campaign committee itself, aside from the DNC, compared with Romney’s $7.5 million."

How is that more?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=801514&mesg_id=801525

Psst. Get a clue.

[woo me with science]

47. Keep ignoring the facts that both parties are rolling in Wall Street money

and pushing Wall Street policies.

The people are not stupid. That is why they are in the streets.

[ClarkUSA]

49. As I proved, the facts are not on your side. And you hardly speak for "The people".

I am a New Yorker and have been down to OWS Times Square with my OFA group. For you to conflate this false OP and WaPo article with OWS "people" is simply more fact-free bilious rhetoric.

FACTS: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=801514&mesg_id=801922

Your overriding dislike for anything Obama will not change the fact that this OP headline is false and WaPo's own reporting contradicts itself. It also does not change the fact that his successful push for Wall Street reform (which includes the Volcker Rule) has resulted in the most comprehensive regulations since the Great Depression.

[woo me with science]

54. Yeah, we know, we know. It's all about me.

Again. :eyes:

Sorry, Clark. The proof is in black and white, in the donations Obama has received, and in his record, which we have all observed first-hand over the past three years.

No amount of spin can change that.

And I suggest you start talking to more of these people in the street...

[ClarkUSA]

40. That's a lie by right wing owned and operated WaPo. Their own article contradicts the OP headline.

From the article:

"In fact, he has raised just $3.9 million from the finance sector for his campaign committee itself, aside from the DNC, compared with Romney’s $7.5 million."

How is that more?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=801514&mesg_id=801525

[JNinWB]

42. More pesky facts.

[ClarkUSA]

43. Fact-finders are even peskier to those who push false narratives day in and day out.

:hi:

[Tarheel_Dem]

44. Where do they dig this shit up from? And how does a "journalist" have any credibility...

after telling outright lies & distortions? There really should be some standard of truth imposed on the media, if not by their editors, then by site managers like DU. It seems there's no source, or publication, too suspect as long as it rips Obama to shreds. :shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

46. WaPo = part of right wing echo chamber. Ask the Washington Post ombudsman. Here's his contact info.

I will, too. While you're at it, we can write to the fucking tool of a reporter, too, as will as a LTTE although rightwingnut Fred Hyatt will never ever print it.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/

[Tarheel_Dem]

48. Thanks for sharing that. I'm on it.

:hi:

[Sheepshank]

50. So what do you think this means?

Look a little deeper and explain, because I know what you are trying to say and I don't agree with the linear thinking if xxxx then yyyyy.