With Donors Like These, Why Are You Voting for Giuliani or Clinton?

It's interesting to look at where the largest donations are coming from for the top-tier political candidates. It gives you an idea of what favors are going to be expected if a particular candidate becomes president. You might be surprised at who is donating to Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton. They can be divided into three categories: (1) employees of the moneyed interests (2) employees of the media interests, and (3) employees of the legal interests. These are the same people who are NOT donating to Ron Paul. Consider what you want your country to look like in four years. If you like it the way it is, continue your support for the establishment candidates. If you don't like what your country is becoming, consider voting for Ron Paul.

It has become more frustrating to me the more I think about it that elections are determined largely by how much money is spent. The money effect has become very evident in the 2008 presidential campaign. I am beginning to wonder if a better solution would be to require the same amounts of money to be spent on all candidates in the race, so that they can't buy their way into office.

Based on largest donations, Rudy and Hillary have a ton of favors to give if they become president. Which is exactly why neither one of them should become president. If you vote for either of them you will wake up one day and consider yourself to have been extremely foolish.

Look at who is donating to Giuliani: the money makers and the lawyers.
RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI (R)
Top Contributors [as of 10/24/07 at 3:20 PM MDT]
Ernst & Young $255,200
Elliott Management $228,400
Credit Suisse Group $166,550
Merrill Lynch $150,275
Bear Stearns $147,866
Lehman Brothers $136,350
Citigroup Inc $135,850
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher $113,625
Morgan Stanley $103,200
Bracewell & Giuliani $101,425
Highland Capital Management $91,350
Station Casinos $88,300
Weil, Gotshal & Manges $87,680
UBS Americas $83,000
Milbank, Tweed et al $79,800
New Breed Inc $78,700
Goldman Sachs $75,150
JP Morgan Chase & Co $71,200
Matlin Patterson Global Advisors $67,900
Aqr Capital Management $66,950
It's pretty similar when you look at Hillary's largest donors:
HILLARY CLINTON (D)
Top Contributors [as of 10/24/07 at 3:20 PM MDT]
DLA Piper $352,835
Goldman Sachs $338,690
Morgan Stanley $326,190
Citigroup Inc $303,865
National Amusements Inc $192,435
Kirkland & Ellis $176,820
JP Morgan Chase & Co $166,890
Skadden, Arps et al $156,060
Greenberg Traurig LLP $150,900
EMILY's List $147,003
Cablevision Systems $129,513
Time Warner $125,870
Bear Stearns $124,865
Merrill Lynch $123,700
Lehman Brothers $123,350
Patton Boggs $117,529
Ernst & Young $107,650
Blank Rome Llp $105,300
Latham & Watkins $100,290
Credit Suisse Group $98,900
Something's fishy. Do you want bankers, Hollywood, and lawyers to influence the direction our country is headed? (Do you like the direction our country is headed?) Or would you rather that you have influence on where our country is headed?

If you aren't a big-time banker, a Hollywood mogul, or a big-time lawyer, you should vote for Ron Paul. It will make a gigantic difference. To you down the road, when you realize you made the right choice. And maybe to the country.

Comments

  1. I disagree that forcing equality in campaign expenditures would result in a good system any more than forcing equality in everyone's paychecks would be a good system. In the marketplace of ideas, a free market is infinitely superior to a controlled market, comrade.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Then how do we get people to quit voting for the front-runners just because they are the front-runners, just because they have the most money?

    Is the American boat sunk on the shores of Stupid People Reef?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Frank,
    I agree with RU. That would be the opposite of what you have said many times about the free market, and I don't think that would be a good idea. Unfortunately, your last question is very correct. Like Bill Maher said with an interview with Ron Paul, "If America was smarter, Ron Paul would be President in 2008." And unfortunately again, American people in general aren't smarter; for the majority they look at the front runners and say, inee meanie miney mo...

    ReplyDelete
  4. I guess we have our work cut out for us, then. Because I'm sick and tired of the same old crap: throw the Democrat bums out and replace them with establishment Republicans, because it can't get any worse--and then it does, and then 4 or 8 years later, throw the Republican bums out and replace them with establishment Democrats, because it can't get any worse--and then it does. We're collectively STUPID!

    The never-ending cycle was all detailed in a book called Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley, and summarized in a book called The Naked Capitalist by Cleon Skousen.

    No one in their right mind should ever again vote for an establishment shill (Bush, Clinton, Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, McCain, etc.) for president.

    Let's break the cycle of stupidity. Let's vote for Ron Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Then again, there's Obama, who isn't taking PAC or lobbyist money, and is not an "establishment" Democrat. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Obama's the only one on the Democrat side that I would consider. It baffles me, with his grace and skill, how he could be trailing Hillary Clinton--but then you look at all the money puppeteers, and it gives you an idea why.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm always amazed when folks that consider themselves in favor of freedom resort to calling for socialism when they are dissatisfied with some social element. When are we going to learn that for the most part, freedom is the answer?

    One of the problems with our current system of choosing presidential nominees is that the system already has too much restriction of freedom and too much government meddling. How bizarre that our Supreme Court rules in favor of obscenity as a form of freedom of speech while restricting that which the Founders held most dear: freedom of political speech.

    The fact of the matter is it takes resources to get your message out. And a candidate's ability to bring sufficient resources to bear in that effort is a large part of getting the message out. Thus, we will never get the money out of campaigns. But instead of trying to restrict it, we should offer more freedom and complete transparency.

    And while people continually rail against our two-party system, let's also face the fact that it has been a foundational part of how our political system works since Washington's re-election campaign.

    Our flawed system has produced some lackluster presidents along with a few great ones. The Founders did not create a system designed to produce perfect presidents. It does not protect us from making a lousy choice. The system was designed to prevent a tyrant from coming to power. Despite the hysterical claims of opponents of the last two presidents, our system has yet to produce a tyrant.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Frank writes, "No one in their right mind should ever again vote for..."

    I disagree. I'm going to cast my vote for a candidate that I think has a chance of winning. That's an election day decision. Before election day, people ought to respond to polls by talking about the candidate they really like the best. But nobody wants the candidate they like the least to win because the for for better candidates was split multiple ways.

    Clearly, we need to implement preference choice voting so that people can vote for the candidate they like the best without throwing away their vote.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I kind of like Obama. While I disagree with some of his policies, I think he could provide a breath of fresh air to Washington. I have considered trying to vote in the Democrat primary to add my vote to get him ahead of Hillary.

    If it came down to a choice between Obama and Guiliani or Obama and Mitt, Obama would definitely have my vote, on the other hand if it was Hillary, I would probably vote for the republican.

    RU, I think a tyrant is slowly coming in to power though. The problem is that it isn't 1 person, it's a collective group of power hungry men who have discovered they can combine forces to achieve more power.

    RU & Bradley. The problem with voting for the winning candidate is that all to often your choice is between two people who both fall under the umbrella of the tyrant group I mentioned above - of being in it solely for their own interests, instead of the American Peoples.

    If everyone who liked 60% or more of Ron Paul's platform would vote for him, he would have an excellent shot at winning. Those who think some of his ideas are too extreme (I'm not one of them) should also remember that he will need to work with the Senate and Congress to pass anything, and that will seriously hinder a lot of progress which he could make.

    We will however have a president who is honest, doesn't want us to lose our national sovreignty to Mexamericanada and will be a president of the people, for the people and by the people. It's not throwing away your vote, it's voting for the person you think would do the best job, which is the reason we vote.

    ReplyDelete
  10. UK, I agree with voting your conscience. I just do not agree with limiting freedom of political speech. People that really get into the freedom agenda like what Ron Paul has to say. But frankly, most voters aren't that well informed. They don't get into politics all that much unless something really gets their knickers in a twist. Thus, one of the establishment candidates will win, as has been the case in almost all elections in the history of our nation.

    One of Ron Paul's challenges is that people make their choices based on a lot more than their level of agreement with a candidate's policy statements. History shows that Americans want somebody that has high-level executive experience (either elective or military). Ron Paul doesn't.

    Voters generally want someone that demonstrates a good balance of working well with other players and standing by their principles. Ron Paul comes across as being very heavy on the principles side and pretty light on the ability to work well with others. It might be argued that this is only media-induced perception or that standing by principles consistently is better than selling the country down the tube (I'd agree with this), but unless he gets this message out to voters a lot better than he is doing today, he doesn't stand a chance.

    And like it or not, being able to play well with other players is a huge part of gaining the kind of support that would facilitate getting the message out. That's simply how politics works. It's not perfect, but it beats a socialized system.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think I'm beginning to see your point. I need to do some more research on McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform to see if fixing/jettisoning that would solve a lot of the problems that I perceive.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog

How LDS Censorship May Have Led to Less LDS Faithfulness: The Ronald E Poelman Conference Talk of 1984

Changing the Narrative of the LDS Church: 35 Years Later

"Mormon Leaks": What They Really Said-Senator Gordon Smith Discusses Politcs