Notwithstanding the rhetoric from current and former presidential hopefuls, guess who is at the top of the list of recipients of these shameful and conflict-ridden campaign contributions?
Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008
Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008
1. Senator C. Dodd, Democrat - CT $133,900
2. Senator J. Kerry, Democrat - MA $111,000
3. Senator B. Obama, Democrat - IL $105,849
4. Senator H. Clinton, Democrat - NY $75,550
Please consider that Senator Obama had to work very hard to position himself third on this list because unlike the other top recipients, he has only been a member of Congress for one term. Certainly something to remember when you receive the next dose of his sanctimonious oratory.
How did these two companies manage to get so deep in the hole despite the oversight of the federal government. Only with a little help from their friends.
7 comments:
Wow, this is interesting! I would think that financial influence and role of lobbyists would be the third rail of the McCain campaign? maybe the fourth or fifth?
I could only find the top 25 recipients, and Senator McCain, much to his credit, is not in this group. However, Emanuel Rahm, Barney Frank, and Nancy Pelosi made the cut. Incidentally, if you look at disbursements from 2005 until now, Senator Obama more than made the cut. He actually leads the pack.
So you can continue to drink the kool-aid being liberally poured by Senator Obama and surrogates, or you can look at the facts.
I'm so glad you responded.
I guess you have to ask if you are lining your pockets or filling your cabinet?
Facts:
Seven, yes seven, of McCains top officials were former Lobbyists.
Here is a quote from Obama:
"John McCain says that he is going to tell all those lobbyists in Washington that their days of running Washington are over, which sounds pretty good until you discover that seven of his top campaign managers and officials are -- guess what? -- former corporate lobbyists,"
and here is the list:
One: Campaign manager Rick Davis is a major telecommunications lobbyist.
Two: Senior foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann recently faced scrutiny over his foreign lobbying on behalf of the Republic of Georgia, which has been embroiled in a military conflict with Russia.
Three: Senior adviser Charlie Black was a foreign lobbyist for dictators in Zaire and Angola in the 1980s, fodder for the liberal group MoveOn.org.
Four: Frank Donatelli, the Republican National Committee's liaison to the McCain campaign, has had clients including Exxon Mobil.
Five: Economic adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer has lobbied for corporate giants like Koch Industries.
The final two lobbyists are McCain's congressional liaison, John Green, and national finance Co-chairman Wayne Berman. They both lobbied for Fannie Mae, the troubled mortgage giant.
Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/09/mccain.lobbying/index.html?iref=24hours
I need to do some more digging but if memory is correct the palin comparison's husband works or worked for BP which is a major lobbyists group linked with McCain...hhmmmmmm.
As far as lobbyist are concerned, you seem to forget that it takes two to tango. A lobbyist tries to influence legislation. Some do it by trying to convince politicians that they ought to vote a certain way. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, most large companies including IBM, Kodak, Xerox, HP, etc. have PAC (Political Action Committee) funds and lobbyists that they used to support candidates. The line that can not be crossed is the quid pro quo line (something for something). That's why Obama said that his relationship with Rezko was a "boneheaded mistake". There was an appearance that Rezko received favorable treatment in return for campaign contributions and favors.
Lobbying congressmen is perfectly legal. Quid pro quo is the corruption that McCain refers to when he says that the days of lobbyist running Washington are over. Obama's pointing out that that former lobbyists work in the McCain Campaign as if it were illegal is nothing more than the kind of politics that he claimed he would not engage in. Does it get any more hypocritical than condemning lobbyists and at the same time accepting contributions from them?
Don't spend to much time looking for dirt about Todd Palin. He worked for BP (British Petroleum) in a management position and resigned when Sarah became Governor because he felt that his management position would appear to be a potential conflict. He has occasionally returned to work for BP in a non-management position.
ok, so, show me the quid pro quo in regards to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Is it the bailing out? Politicians bailed out Wall Street due to the singificant economic impact that it would have on our horrid economy. Politicians bail out guys with nicknames like Scooter because really, they were merely a scapegoat.....
Lobbyists contriubte to politicians for personal gain all the time. Fannie and Freddie have done the same - maybe they should have been more responsible with their financial dealings so they wouldn't have needed the bail out from the government?? Is John McCain not a 26 year veteran of the government? A Reformed Maverick? (reformed is key here)
Show me how Obama did anything wrong by accepting their contributions and, please show me how his behavior is any different than that of John McCain when it comes to Lobbyists. You know, besides hiring them all to run his campagin.
I don't know if there was quid pro quo in the top five recipients of Fannie/Freddie contributions but there is certainly the appearance of a conflict. Isn't is fair to ask if these pols can you regulate the conduct of these companies if you are accepting major contributions?
I don't see the conflict in hiring lobbyists to participate in a candidates campaign because in this case, you are paying the lobbyists, not the other way around. As such, there is no appearance of quid pro quo.
McCain has a long-term congressional resume that includes a record of numerous occasions where he bucked his own party when he felt they were wrong. The 90% voting for Bush's programs is the cheapest of shots because it disregards the areas where Bush and McCain see things differently. I will outline the specifics in my next blog post. However, why else would he have problems with the conservatives in the Republican Party if he truly backed Bush 95% of the time?
So the record he has of voting with Bush 90% of the time is false? If it is true then how much bucking is going on? And, how is this a cheapshot? Is it not simply uncvering the facts for the American public? Debasing the language that McCain has chosen to utilize?
Here is the scenario we have in front of us today:
One guy speaks about the need for change and lays out agendas and plans to provide it. Another speaks about exprience and then, flips his mantra to "change". Where is this resume of change, somehwere in the 10% grey area?
If he had issues with the conservatives of his party then two things would not have happened in the past year.
1. He would not have moved from a centrist (i.e. self-proclaimed Maverick) position, that lost him the 2000 election, all the way to the right. Lets be honest, he needed the base he "bucks" to have any chance to get to the White House. Sounds like a big ol flip flop to me. I'm at the point where I can't actually tell you what this man stands for!
2. Sarah Palin.
I will await your next blog as I have quite a bit to add to this subject matter.
Post a Comment