Obama getting more money from Wall Street donors than all of the Republican candidates combined!

[Better Believe It]

Obama still flush with cash from financial sector despite frosty relations
By Dan Eggen and T.W. Farnam
October 19, 2011

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.

.... Obama has brought in more money from employees of banks, hedge funds and other financial service companies than all of the GOP candidates combined, according to a Washington Post analysis of contribution data. The numbers show that Obama retains a persistent reservoir of support among Democratic financiers who have backed him since he was an underdog presidential candidate four years ago.

Obama’s ties to Wall Street donors could complicate Democratic plans to paint Republicans as puppets of the financial industry, particularly in light of the Occupy Wall Street protests that have gone global over the past week.

One top banking executive who raises money for Obama, discussing fundraising efforts on the condition of anonymity, said reports of disaffection with the president “are exaggerated and overblown.” He said a strong contingent of financiers in New York, Chicago and California remains supportive of Obama and his economic policies, even as some have turned on him. But, this donor added, “it probably helps from a political perspective if he’s not seen as a Wall Street guy.”

Read the full article at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-has-more-cash-from-financial-sector-than-gop-hopefuls-combined-data-show/2011/10/18/gIQAX4rAyL_story.html

[banned from Kos]

1. Lots of liberals in New York City. Think Jon Corzine and the 100s of

others that were Democrats long before Obama came along.

[Horse with no Name]

2. Thanks for posting.

Our system is so broken...

[david_vincent]

3. Of course. They LOVE the fact that they pulled off the biggest heist

in the history of history and no one was handcuffed. Obama is bound to be reelected because Wall Street banksters love him for saving their asses from Club Fed.

[Puzzledtraveller]

5. very well put

[Firebrand Gary]

4. He is an incumbent, its standard practice.

Additionally the numbers will change very fast when the GOP nominee is revealed.

[Better Believe It]

7. True. They may radically increase their donations to Obama once the Republican candidate is chosen

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[Better Believe It]

8. You writing about Wall Street "bundled" donations. Right?

So Wall Street donors are "bundling" more for Obama than all the other candidates combined. I'm not at all surprised. President Obama has served them well.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[Better Believe It]

45. That's how big business and Wall Street raise funds for candidates. This is news to you?

You can easily find information on the internet on this subject.

Do you need my help?

[banned from Kos]

9. When one campaigns against Obama the truth is irrelevant

see also Fox News.

[Bobbie Jo]

41. Daily

FUD installment. This train is never late.

[xchrom]

10. Recommend

[catabryna]

11. Note that it says "employees" rather than "employers"...

I thought that was an interesting choice of words. I wonder where the "employer", i.e. corporate money is going?

eta: It appears that they are playing both sides... they want Obama to appear to side with Wall Street, because it makes both Republican and Democratic parties appear to be the same. That helps the Republicans.

[Better Believe It]

14. All big financial firms "bundle" money from "employees" that is contributeed to campaigns.

That's the standard operating procedure used by corporations and Wall Street firms that raise money for candidates.

Don't try and read something out of "employers" vis a vis "employees" that isn't there.

As the article also pointed out:

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

So three employees from that financial firm contributed 76 grand to Obama's campaign. I guess they just passed the hat!

[catabryna]

19. I used to donate to campaigns when I had the funds...

When I donated to a particular candidate, I had to state the name of my employer. It did not mean that my employer was responsible in any way, shape or form for my decision to support a particular candidate. That is my point.

The article, in my opinion, has an angle.

[Better Believe It]

46. Did you employer lean on you to donate to their "bundle" for a candidate they supported?

That's not what you're writing about, right?

What you have raised has nothing to do with corporate and Wall Street bundling for candidates they support.

Do you now understand the difference?

[catabryna]

63. Hell no...

my former employer would never do that. He was a Democrat, but there were Republicans in our office as well from time to time.

eta: We were a small firm. He made his donations, we employees made ours. Some people have more integrity than to play games like that with their employees. Some people also have more integrity than to play word games with people they happen to disagree with. You chose to cherry-pick from the original article. You were called out on it and I wasn't the only person to do so.

eta2: If anyone might have had an opportunity to lean on me to change my vote, it would have been my dead Republican husband. He was, however, too smart to try to pull that one off. :hi:

[JTFrog]

27. You tell others not to read something that isn't there? There is a whole paragraph missing

from the article you posted.

:wtf:

[catabryna]

33. You are correct...

I read the entire article earlier this morning.

[Enrique]

12. no, Obama "proved he can't be bought," so they stopped giving him money

that's the story I read recently on DU anyway. :shrug:

[JTFrog]

13. Bullshit.

How is less more?

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

How did this part get removed from the article: "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."

The numbers you're talking about include money to the DNC.

This is so fucking dishonest, it's unbelievable.

[Denzil_DC]

16. "This is so fucking dishonest, it's unbelievable."

It's believable alright. Consider the source.

[JTFrog]

18. Indeed.

Better Believe It.

[Enrique]

22. good point

if they're going to do a comparison, why don't they include the RNC? Maybe there's a reason, but it looks like an apples-and-oranges comparison.

[flamingdem]

35. +1 thanks for adding this information that clarifies the BS that is this OP

We don't need more right wing talking points against Obama, enough.

[Bobbie Jo]

44. SOP

For the OP. Not a shred of credibility remains. None.

[Denzil_DC]

15. This BS has been debunked on DU already. Unrec.

The WaPo article includes money raised for the DNC in Obama's tally, whereas the amounts for the GOP candidates are dcontributions directed solely to them.

A less misleading picture is portrayed by this graph: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/FinanceMoneyOct2011

[Better Believe It]

17. Your post is mistaken.

This is how big bucks are raised by Obama on Wall Street according to 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, which will aid in his reelection effort."

If you can refute this fact and the other objective facts presented in the Washington Post article please proceed.

I'm listening.

[JTFrog]

21. Again, what happened to this part of the article:

"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."

[Enrique]

28. why don't they include the RNC?

if they're going to include the DNC on Obama's side, why don't they include the RNC on the GOP side?

[Denzil_DC]

31. Exactly. n/t

[Better Believe It]

47. The RNC is not collecting money for Perry, et al. The DNC is collecting money for Obama's campaign

[Denzil_DC]

30. More BS. It's not mistaken at all.

You don't address that graph from a reputable source. That's objective fact.

Your own quote there clearly says that they are including money raised for the DNC. That's objective fact. That is not comparing like with like. It is not solely money that can be used for Obama's reelection. Once there is a GOP candidate, then the true comparison would be to include the money the Republican Party raises for generqal campaigning along with the individual candidate's.

Select your media outlet:

"Romney Beating Obama in a Fight for Wall St. Cash" - http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/us/romney-perry-and-cain-open-wide-financial-lead-over-field.html?

"Obama struggling to raise donations from Wall Street" - http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2011/09/obama_struggling_to_raise_dona.html

And BTW, I don't need or desire your permission to "proceed." This OP is dishonest.

[Better Believe It]

48. Big corporations and Wall Street firms are and will continue to give millions to Obama.

Without the support of his friends and co-thinkers on Wall Street, Obama would not find it possible to raise a billion bucks for his re-election campaign.

They owe him big time and they will pay!

CASE CLOSED.

Now you can try and spin it by claiming Wall Street and big corporations oppose Obama but that election talking point and rhetoric just won't sell among progressives who know the facts.

So keep spinning while the Wall Street banksters and corporate tycoons continue to write out big checks to President Obama's election campaign committee and the DNC.

How much do you think they'll spend to bankroll the Democratic and Republican party conventions next year?

[Bobbie Jo]

52. And you will continue to mischaracterize anything you get your mouse on...

Your RW tactics are tiresome.

[JTFrog]

55. Funny, the article you link to supports exactly the opposite claim you are spinning.

Either before or after the edit, the facts in the article say the same thing:

"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."

"Even so, Obama clearly has trouble appealing to Wall Street fundraisers, who have emerged in recent years as among the most important sources of campaign cash for major national politicians.

Put aside the DNC money, for example, and Obama’s numbers look much worse: just $3.9 million from the financial sector, compared with Romney’s $7.5 million."

CASE CLOSED

:eyes:

[SidDithers]

70. +1...

too bad he can't see your reply. BBI has anyone that has proven him wrong in the past on ignore.

Sid

[bowens43]

20. you see this as a positive? nt

[JTFrog]

23. BBI has never seen any positive in Obama. n/t

[Avalux]

25. Bloomberg says Romney is taking Obama's Wall St. donors:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-27/romney-lures-obama-wall-street-donors-in-race-for-campaign-cash.html

So which is it?

It certainly helps the other side to frame Obama as 'in bed' with Wall St.; a quick google search shows the effort. In reality, the money's going to Romney.

[Better Believe It]

50. Obama is getting more campaign donations from Romney's financial firm than Mitt Romney!!!

From the same article:

"Obama’s fundraising advantage is clear in the case of Bain Capital, the Boston-based private-equity firm that was co-founded by Romney, and where the Republican 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 needed only three donors to do it."

[Better Believe It]

62. That doesn't include corporate donations that are bundled.

[jpljr77]

26. Romney will eclipse him 10 times over once he gets the nomination.

Remember, Romney is one of them...for realz: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#Business_career">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#Business_career

This is just the typical Wall Street hedging. They aren't dumb. They know that Obama stands a good chance of being re-elected.

[GoCubsGo]

29. Thank you. Exactly right.

The GOP has yet to choose their candidate. Any one of that lot, with the possible exception of Ron Paul, will be the recipient of massive amounts of Wall St. money. And, in the unlikely even Paul were to get it, the money would go to the party, as if it isn't already.

[BklnDem75]

32. Huge unrec for misleading bs

[G_j]

36. what is misleading?

I think the numbers speak for themselves

[JTFrog]

37. Then why leave a whole paragraph from the article 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."

And why lump money taken in by DNC without lumping money taken in by RNC?

Not only misleading, but dishonest.

[BklnDem75]

39. As was pointed out already

Obama made $3.9 million compared to Romney's $7.5 million. That alone proves the OP false. What numbers are you reading?

[OHdem10]

34. Getting money from Wall St is not the most honorable thing.

It makes the OWS feel real good I am sure.

Yesterday there was a post that Wall St had stopped
donations to Democrats.

What is going on??

[dionysus]

38. "Obama retains a persistent reservoir of support among Democratic financiers " oh noes.

[AngkorWot]

40. 7.5 million > 3.9 million

unless you've got math problems

[mfcorey1]

42. This has to be a lie because it was just reported that he was getting less and the money was going

to rethuglican candidates. Truth in reporting or fueling a rumor from the WAshington Post.

[maxrandb]

43. It could be that

they realize that a Repuke takeover...especially the freak show that is currently running would be catastrophic.

[AtomicKitten]

49. Nope.

The total raised by Republican Presidential candidates is almost three times more than President Obama's total:

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

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/10/mitt-romney-wall-street-money.html

* this entire post was lifted from http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x801570

[coalition_unwilling]

51. Oh, goodie. Well, he certainly doesn't need my vote, money or

time.

[JTFrog]

56. Yes, you've made it clear that you will not support the President or the party.

Crystal clear.

[girl gone mad]

53. I can't believe people are arguing over whether he raised..

3 million or 8 million, or more or less than Romney.

Why is he accepting any money at all from these thieves and criminals?

Why is it ok to take their cash after mostly refusing to prosecute them for stealing from the American public?

[Bobbie Jo]

54. No, people are "arguing over"

The honesty of the OP. Not that it seems to matter to headline readers.

[girl gone mad]

57. The OP was quoting the Washington Post.

"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."

Straight from the article.

You consistently attack the messenger rather than addressing the subject.

WHY IS OBAMA ACCEPTING WALL STREET'S STOLEN CASH??????

[Bobbie Jo]

61. When the "messenger" has a distinct agenda,

It's fair game. The OP purposely edited this OP in the most dishonest and misleading way possible.

....and has quite an established track record for using this tactic.

Apparently, you chose to overlook a number of clarifying posts yourself. I guess the OP still has a willing "audience" here.

[girl gone mad]

64. Then why don't you edit the WP story in a way that makes Obama look good..

and start your own thread?

[Bobbie Jo]

65. LOL

An accurate account would suffice. No "creative editing" is required.

:rofl:

[girl gone mad]

67. I read the piece word for word.

Why is Obama accepting Wall Street's blood money? And far more of it than any other candidate?

He should give it back.

[JTFrog]

68. More bullshit and dishonesty.

"And far more of it than any other candidate?"

Is it your math or reading comprehension that is lacking? Or do you just enjoy distorting the truth?

$7.5 million is still MORE than 3.9 million. (Actually more like 10.9 million vs. 3.9 million, but for the sake of this argument, we'll go with the numbers stated in the WaPo article)

Did you miss post #49. Or perhaps you missed http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x801570">this thread. Or perhaps OpenSecrets.org is only an acceptable source if it's suits your agenda?

FFS.

[SidDithers]

60. There's never any question about honesty from this poster...nt

Sid

[Better Believe It]

58. So who are President Obama's corporate/Wall Street campaign bundlers? Read the list.

Many more will surely be added in the coming weeks. BBI

Bundlers are people with friends in high places who, after bumping against personal contribution limits, turn to those friends, associates, and, well, anyone who's willing to give, and deliver the checks to the candidate in one big "bundle."

Even though these donors direct more money to the candidates than anyone else, disclosure can be spotty, candidates generally release bundlers by ranges of fundraising, indicated in this chart with the "max" and "min" columns, and with the top ranges being simply "$500,000 or more." Together, 244 elites are directing at least $34,950,000 for Obama's re-election efforts -- money that has gone into the coffers of his campaign as well as the Democratic National Committee..

Read the chart at:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/bundlers.php?id=N00009638

[SidDithers]

59. Unrec...

keep trying.

Sid

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. Hand in glove. And, they wonder why OWS is shunning the politicians who take the bribes.

But, of course, if "our" guys are on the payroll that's OK.

[Hart2008]

69. This needs to be addressed. Recced up to zero or some negative number. NT