Categorized | Politics

Who gives to Romney, Newt, Obama?

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on LinkedInShare on RedditDigg thisShare on StumbleUponBuffer this pagePin on PinterestShare on TumblrEmail this to someone

There’s a great list of Super PAC contributors at this site.  Super PACs are the new rage for funding campaigns since the Supreme Court’s Citizen United decision eliminated many barriers to funding politicians.

*  Romney’s Super PAC received, by far, the most at $30.2M.  Financial industry is heavily represented.

*  Obama’s Super PAC has $4.4M.  The biggest contributor is Jeffrey Katzenberg of Dreamworks.

*  Newt’s had $2.2M, but that may be old data because of recent news about hotel and casino magnate Sheldon Adelson giving $10M.

*  Stephen Colbert’s “super PAC” Americans for a Better Tomorrow was a spoof but raised over $1 million.  (I wish I could raise a million with a spoof).  His Super PAC advertised in favor of Herman Cain in South Carolina.

Most troubling to me is the financial industry domination of the process.  Obama refused to move the currency manipulation bill after being elected because of financial industry pressure, in my opinion.  Romney has said good things on China, though he said bad things about the currency manipulation bill (HR 639), but I an concerned about his financial industry backers nullifying action later.

We have to continue building the constituency to demand change, regardless of who wins.

5 Responses to “Who gives to Romney, Newt, Obama?”

  1. Jim Schollaert says:

    The next time anyone talks about tax breaks for corporate America, and especially our financial sector, to spur investment, just remember where that investment is likely to go. Here is a quote from our biggest private equity oligarch in today’s financial press:

    “China is likely to grow between 8 and 10 percent or so for the next 10 years,” said David Rubenstein, co-chief executive officer of Carlyle, a private-equity firm, “China to me is the most attractive place in the world to invest” outside the U.S., he said at the conference

  2. Tom T. says:

    It seems that the tax breaks the elite earners were given to “invest” in the U.S. economy has been used to “invest” in our politicians or other “more profitable” enterprises not in the U.S.

    Our Supreme Court has aided in this type of “investment” by the elite. Perhaps they all belong to the same country club where they trade strategies and game plans.

    Tom

  3. Tom T. says:

    Sorry this is a little off topic…….

    Can U.S. companies compete with sovereign nations like China undercutting business models in a predatory manner?

    http://cleantechnica.com/2011/07/12/solar-silicon-prices-to-continue-falling-as-asian-bigs-ramp-up-capacity-in-bid-to-gain-market-share/

    I am all for prices coming down and I wonder why U.S. companies didn’t invest in silicon plants. Is the theory that lower capital tax gains for the very rich actually helping the economy or just helping the very rich? Why didn’t they build these silicon plants?

    I posed the question before of whether the timeline for China’s predatory actions was a result of Obama’s trip to China saying that our trade situation had to change. Can countries like China play the games necessary to undercut U.S. business models and perhaps presidencies? Is this kind of threat the reason the political leaders in our country are always cow towing to the super rich or even global competitors like China that break all the rules?

    Tom T.

  4. Maggie says:

    The really ugly fact is that either tax breaks to corporate America to spur investment, or stimulus spending to spur consumer spending is likely to go out the door to to China (just examine labels on everything in the stores). So the endless bickering in Congress over polarized views of economic theory is inconsequential to how the real economy is working, or rather failing. It is failing because a leaky flat tire cannot hold any air pressure no matter whose hand is on the tire pump.

    • Tom T. says:

      The other really ugly fact is that by trying to solve the problem by catering to businesses by giving them everything is killing the nation’s income statement and balance sheet. As we have seen, the people on SS or public servants like teachers become the next favorite target of fixing the balance sheet and income statement. SS flows have for a long time subsidized the nation’s income statement and all of the surplus in taxes paid by workers seems to be less and less valued by those using these surpluses to increase their own wealth.

      I learned a long time ago that I could not make my children happy by giving them everything they wanted (wife just had this discussion with one of them). It is time our politicians did the same with respect to business. It will not benefit the nation’s balance sheet one bit to subsidize businesses to have them here. It is a continual march to the lowest common denominator and will bankrupt the country.

      I don’t want labor or other standards in the United States to be “competitive” as it is used by the “free traders” with respect to Chinese labor that is under a totalitarian state. If I wanted that, I would emigrate to China or Russia.

      Tom T.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


Friends Don’t Let Friends Buy Imports

Sign up to receive periodic updates

Frequency