Front-page NY Times article misled on Obama and McCain campaigns' dependence on contributions of $1,000 or more
SUMMARY: The New York Times reported that a third of the $340 million Sen. Barack Obama's campaign has raised "has come from donations of $1,000 or more: a total of $112 million, more than Senator John McCain ... raised in contributions of that size." But the Times did not note that a significantly higher percentage -- nearly three-fourths -- of McCain's campaign contributions have exceeded $1,000.
In a front-page August 6 article, New York Times reporters Michael Luo and Christopher Drew wrote: "In an effort to cast himself as independent of the influence of money on politics, Senator Barack Obama often highlights the campaign contributions of $200 or less that have amounted to fully half of the $340 million he has collected so far. But records show that one-third of his record-breaking haul has come from donations of $1,000 or more: a total of $112 million, more than Senator John McCain ... raised in contributions of that size." But while reporting that Obama has raised more money than McCain in donations of $1,000 or more, and that Obama's $112 million in such large contributions amounts to "one-third of his record-breaking haul," Luo and Drew did not note that a significantly higher percentage of McCain's campaign contributions have equaled or exceeded $1,000.
According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, contributions of $1,000 or more represented 36.4 percent of Obama's total contributions from individuals, compared to 74.3 percent of McCain's total contributions from individuals:
|
McCain |
Obama |
|
|
Total of contributions of more than $1,000 |
$90,030,781 |
$122,704,308 |
|
Total individual contributions through July 28 |
$121,232,420 |
$336,740,735 |
|
Percentage |
74.3% |
36.4% |
From the August 6 Times article:
In an effort to cast himself as independent of the influence of money on politics, Senator Barack Obama often highlights the campaign contributions of $200 or less that have amounted to fully half of the $340 million he has collected so far.
But records show that one-third of his record-breaking haul has come from donations of $1,000 or more: a total of $112 million, more than Senator John McCain, Mr. Obama's Republican rival, or Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, his opponent in the Democratic primaries, raised in contributions of that size.
Behind those larger donations is a phalanx of more than 500 Obama "bundlers," fund-raisers who have each collected contributions totaling $50,000 or more. Many of the bundlers come from industries with critical interests in Washington. Nearly three dozen of the bundlers have raised more than $500,000 each, including more than a half-dozen who have passed the $1 million mark and one or two who have exceeded $2 million, according to interviews with fund-raisers.
Irony,
Hahaha... very good!
Anybody seen the breakdown of contributions to all candidates in either party through the primary. I do believe the Dems collected far more $$$. they definitely were energized through the primary. Anyone believe they are all tapped out?
I haven't noticed quite the stir surrounding Obama since then, except for the Berlin speech. Is he still packing them in stadiums while McCain works the clubs?
Obama raised $52 million in June to McCain's $22 million. However, as pointed out in this article, McCain will be getting about $200 million from the RNC.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/21/june-campaign-finance-num_n_113991.html
Julia,
I'm surprised you would be so offensive to women and the transgendered, using the B word like you were using the N word. It is a degrading sexual reference whether applied to males, females or other. I think you might give some conservatives the impression that liberals do not practice what they preach. We know that is not the case right?
You just did.
I've seen your response many times when I confront people who claim to be liberal making sexist and/or racist remarks. Go ahead and keep deceiving yourself by claiming the high moral ground while spewing sexist epithets. Your lack of awareness is not unsurprising.
Can somebody who is more skilled at the google please find my remarks on this subject a few months ago. It may surprise The Great and Powerful Eejit on what I had to say then. And still say.
And yeah, AA I call my AA husband the N word too. IDIOT!
Julia,
Ohhh... Now I see.
It is okay for you to say the B word because Paris says it. Besides you use the N word too!
Of course! These words are epithets that would bring down the house if a conservative used them here but somehow are terms of endearment when you use them.
That explains a lot. However you might have a harder time convincing Pearlene. She might not appreciate your double standard.
AA, actually I don't use the N word. I was cranking you on that front. And here is what I wrote a few short months ago, I did find it, so you're in outer space again with your hyper active sensitivy to my mocking use of the word here today:
"I hope we're not going to get the nauseating harrangue back and forth from a few males about whether it's appropriatre or sexist to use this word to describe a female (or her voice). Guys, it's not okay. Beginning, middle and end of story. I don't want some lame comparison to calling a guy a d**k. This is a ubiquitous word used to dehumanize and sunjugate and disrespect women. It is nasty and it's frequency of use does nothing to mitigate the hurt it causes. I don't care whether it's a female or male using it. Whoopi Goldberg already did the experiment of trying to "take control" of the word and she admitted it failed just as AAs using the "N' word has failed.
You can just imagine how I feel about the "C" word :-0)"
End of diatribe.
Still waiting for AA to man up and apologize for his inability to see beyond his narrow world view (and knee jerk sensibilities) and his persistent inability to see beyond the literal. What a fool he has made of himself here.
Julia,
Sorry to keep you waiting.
A simple, "Oops that was in bad taste." would have saved you a lot of embarrassment. but you keep digging yourself a deeper hole.I have nothing to apologize for. I did not use the B word like you did or claim to use the N word with my spouse. I simply pointed out that the B word is offensive. Judging by what you say is a previous quote, at least at one level, you agree with me. Why do I need to apologize for that?
It seems to me to be hypocritical by calling people here the B word when you supposedly earlier said it was offensive.In addition saying in one post you use the N word and then coming back and saying you don't really use it doesn't do much for your credibility.
Why would you claim to use the N word with your husband and now saying you don't? You may not realize it but you just admitted you were lying in the first post.
But maybe you were not. You could have been honest in that post about using the N word with your husband and only trying to cover it up in this last post by saying you were lying earlier. If that is the case, again you are guilty of lying.
I'll give you credit. Being hypocritical and lying all in the same thread then telling me I ought to apologize takes a lot chutzpah. You made my day.
My Mozilla browser rendered two of the sentences above very small. Here they are.
A simple, "Oops that was in bad taste." would have saved you a lot of embarrassment. but you keep digging yourself a deeper hole.It seems to me to be hypocritical by calling people here the B word when you supposedly earlier said it was offensive.
Sorry. I thought cutting and pasting them into notepad then pasting them back into the MMFA reply window would work.
Sometimes it works like a charm, some times it doesn't.
AA, I stopped reading when you called me a liar since you are THE most dishonest poster on this site. You are incredibly ignorant and make a fool of yourself here on a daily basis. I was making a point by saying I called my AA husband the N word. Just because you have NO capacity to understand anything I will not bother you with the subtleties of sarcasm.
You may be too thick to realize this but even usually polite and even handed posters are losing patience with you and your incredibly breathtaking arrogance. Try to do some soul searching before you cast any more stones, you phony.
And BTW nobody can read that little crap you cut and paste in these posts. You may try to be more courteous and quit with the cutting, pasting, plagerizing bit. We've had it with you.
That explains a lot. However you might have a harder time convincing Pearlene. She might not appreciate your double standard.
AA, I think your problem is you live in a black and white world. You can't see shades of gray which makes common sense reasoning difficult for you.
Having watched the Paris Hilton ad, Juliajayne's "bitches" comment was FUNNY. Believe it or not most women know the difference in the Hilton bitches comment and a derogatory use of the word. Just as African American know the derogatory use of the "N" word. I think you have a problem knowing the difference.
By the way, since when did you start caring about transgendered folks?
You girlies be nice to my AA. He's a 33 1/3rpm guy in a 45 rpm world that went digital while he wasn't looking.
JJ, remember there are ultra-conservative posters here. You need to finish off those posts with SARCASM in really big letters, like closed captioning for the thinking impaired.
The funniest part was that Paris had a better energy plan than either Obama or McCain!
Hope one or both will adopt it.
I saw this on Morning Joe. Before my first cup of coffee. I kinda just rolled my eyes. I mean who cares about Paris Hilton.
But by the second time I watched it, having had two cups of joe by then, I laughed. Good for Paris, she has finally accomplished something worthwhile ;-)
True that. Jay played it last night and I thought it was funny the first time around, although I was ready not to like it because of, well...Paris Hilton. Eew.
Did you pick up my reference to you contributing to the gene pool below? I had a good rejoinder in case anybody responded, But I don't have time to wait around for the response I'd hoped for. Oh well. It's finally cool enough here to mow the lawn and do some weed eating, so buh bye, sweets. BTW I left a response on Monday's thread about my travel plans.
Yes darlin I saw the gene pool reference, laughed, thought of a funny/somewhat suggestive response, then decided against it, knowing it would either get flagged, or send this thread hurling off the track. Don't want to get crap for doing that ;-)
I read your post on the other thread. I planned to get back there & leave you a post when I had a few extra minutes instead of seconds to play here.
Jeter,
Actually the funny part, I do believe, is that the Hilton proposal in that video is essential the same as the McCain energy plan. Drill for oil now while r&d alternative energy.
The Hiltons got mocked by a McCain in his recent ad and they are "big donors" of his campaign.
The Hiltons may be reconsidering that after the way Gramps bashed Paris Hilton....
But couldn't someone donate $2300 and have a teenage child donate another $2300 and have a 3 month old donate $2300 and have their cat donate $2300?
There are things such as loopholes, right?
Anyway, I do think that The Big O has outadvertised The Maverick in this campaign (which can be a factor in how much money one candidate is receiving)
Dawuss,
No!
Dawus,
Or funnel contributions stating they came from Chinese immigrants and homeless people who cannot be found. Or perhaps have people say they mortgaged their house to give it to the campaign as Hillary's campaign did.
The only downside is it is illegal.
Go away unless you have proof of what you allege.
On second thought, just go away.
Your childish retort is noted (again.) So is your short memory.
The following is from September, 2007.
Federal prosecutors unsealed a criminal complaint Thursday charging Democratic fund-raiser Norman Hsu with breaking campaign finance laws and creating a “massive” Ponzi scheme.
The complaint says Mr. Hsu — who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Sen. Hillary Clinton and others — violated campaign finance laws by making contributions to candidates in other people’s names and perpetrated a Ponzi scheme to defraud victims across the U.S. of over $60 million.
http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2007/09/20/hsu-charged-with-fraud-and-more-hillary-campaign-money-questions/You're the one being childish - conflating a Clinton-donor with Obama's fund raising prowess. It's a straw man. Every politician takes money. Every politician has taken dirty money. Not every dollar is "vetted" to make sure it didn't come from dishonest people/means.
Look up the K Street Project and get back to me about institutional corruption. Remember Jack Abramoff?
fog,
See if you can follow the thread. The discussion was using family members to contribute more funds to a campaign.
Stay with me now. I provided an example of Mr. Hsu doing just that to prove my contention that it is indeed illegal.
That is all.
I suggest you focus more on what actually is being discussed rather than reflexive responses that are completely off topic and have no bearing on the discussion at hand.
AA, for your reading pleasure:
The bundle of $2,300 and $4,600 checks that poured into Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign on March 12 came from an unlikely group of California donors: a mechanic from D&D Auto Repair in Whittier, the manager of Taco Bell stores in Riverside, the owners of a liquor store in Colton.
Some of the most prolific givers live in modest homes in Southern California's Inland Empire. Most had never given a political contribution before being contacted by Sargeant or his associates. Most said they have never voiced much interest in politics. And in several instances, they had never registered to vote. And yet, records show, some families have ponied up as much as $18,400 for various candidates between December and March.
But the man who gathered checks from them is no stranger to McCain -- he shuttled the Republican on his private plane and held a fundraising event for the candidate at his house in Delray Beach, Fla.
Harry Sargeant III, a former naval officer and the owner of an oil-trading company that recently inked defense contracts potentially worth more than $1 billion.
Both Sargeant and the donors were vague when asked to explain how Sargeant persuaded them to give away so much money.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/06/AR2008080602485.html
From the article:
"Behind those larger donations is a phalanx of more than 500 Obama “bundlers,” fund-raisers who have each collected contributions totaling $50,000 or more. Many of the bundlers come from industries with critical interests in Washington. Nearly three dozen of the bundlers have raised more than $500,000 each, including more than a half-dozen who have passed the $1 million mark and one or two who have exceeded $2 million, according to interviews with fund-raisers."
Interviews with fund-raisers? Why not give an actual source for his info? My guess is that these numbers came from whole cloth and were based only on assumptions.
I have never donated one cent to any political campaign. Never will.
$52 mil. $22 mil. One month. Ridiculous.
$340 mil. $112mil. Gawd think about how that could have been better spent...
Yeah yeah, I know that's how much it costs to run for Prez these days. But what a colossal waste of $$, IMO.
Sorry, just had to vent.
Aw Gov is Winkie the name of your binky? Or is that your favorite teddy bear?
Aw Gov is Winkie the name of your binky? Or is that your favorite teddy bear?
Winkie was my kid sister's dog when I was growing up - one-half daschund, one-half spitz...
Jeter,
Think of how much of that money goes to fuel to transport those two clowns and their circus entourages around the U.S., Iraq, Afghanistan, Europe and Central America.
Nice to know they both want to reduce carbon emissions. Kind of reminds me of Al Gore jetting around the globe telling us to ride bicycles to work.
Politicians... gotta love 'em!
Kind of reminds me of Al Gore jetting around the globe telling us to ride bicycles to work.
Your alleged hypocrisy is misplaced and faulty. Why do you hate the environment so much? Is the answer because you are selfish and do not care about future generations?
But the Times did not note that a significantly higher percentage -- nearly three-fourths -- of McCain's campaign contributions have exceeded $1,000
Facts can be such a problem......
But wait.... I thought the NYT's was in the pocket of the liberals, Democrats, and Obama's campaign?? hmmmm
It must be true.... FoxNoise's BillO says it all the time!
How cute...maybe mmfa should write all the headlines and articles for the news outlets.
"Big Donors, too, Have Seats at Obama Fund-Raising Table"...the NYTimes article was clearly "about" Obama's fund raising...not a critique of all candidates.
mmfa slyly re-writes the topic/title as "Obama and McCain campaign dependence on campaign contributions of $1000 or more"...making the article hypocritical since it did not dwell at length on both candidates.
The article was "about Obama"...factual and well written and sourced. Writing an article "about" the great horse Secretariat does not have to include analysis of every horse he raced against...except in the parsing, word-smithing world of mmfa.
Of course they could always break their charter of only sniping at all media outlets and write their own fair and balanced articles to ensure balance and accuracy for democrat candidates...instead of creeping in the shadows of other's political reporting and journalism.
Hey Wes,
Don't you realize that MMFA can be hypocritical and disingenuous? It's in their charter so it's okay.
Hahaha...
Well that's a wrap for MMfa. How can they possibly come back from those stunning inditments. The embarrasment is beyond human comprehension.
That'll mean you'll have to go back to Freeperville to post your remaining breathless prose.
I know you'll miss your audience here. Stiff upper lip and try to maintain.