Obama's Money, Take Two

When Barack Obama pulled out of public campaign financing, I wrote a column about his money machine, noting that despite all the small Internet donors, his campaign is still mostly funded in the most traditional of ways. Numerous readers taking offense at my characterization of Obama's fundraising as dominated by "fat cats." In light of new details on Obama's fundraising which have become available, now would be a good time to revisit this issue.

The Daily News reports today that "For both candidates, Wall Street's investment and banking sectors have become among their portliest cash cows, contributing $9.5 million to Obama and $5.3 million to McCain so far." The paper notes that Obama's total Wall Street haul is just short of GW Bush's Wall Street booty at the same point in the last presidential campaign. Don 't forget that GW's campaign was seen at the time as an brash orgy of money and power.

The Daily News further notes that "records show that four out of Obama's top five contributors are employees of financial industry giants - Goldman Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase ($362,207) and Citigroup ($358,054)."

(That would be the same Goldman Sachs that recently moved its chairman and CEO into Bush's cabinet as Treasury Secretary. The mega investment firm is known for its mastery of milking political connection for profit, an operation so vast it would be hard to know where to begin, but Mother Jones' recent "Goldman Sachs' Road to Riches" column is a good a place as any to start.)

Let's contrast this with some of the comments my column received:

Fat cat my ass. I'm truly sick of the media and republicans thinking we're all fools. Sen. Obama's cash has come for working people, who I add just might happen to have $2,300 to donate -- $2,300 is a long way away from being a fat cat!!

$50 a month for the past six months makes me a fat cat??? That's less than my cable bill . . . does that make my cable company beholden to me, too???

Folks, I am delighted that you, like me, are giving money to Barack Obama. But let's be real: the fact that you or I can scrape together a string of small donations that might total more than $200 does not put us in a league with fat cats who can walk through their executive suites or their gated communities collecting piles of checks for $2300. Surely you are not that naive.

In his New York Times column today, David Brooks looks at the recently released campaign finance information and concludes, "Over the past few years, people from Goldman Sachs have assumed control over large parts of the federal government. Over the next few they might just take over the whole darn thing."

In all seriousness, this is not an outcome I would be opposed to. Having Goldman Sachs run the government would be a huge step up from having Halliburton run it. Really. For starters, I don't think Goldman Sachs would push the country into disastrous foreign wars. And the barons of Wall Street, whose bread and butter is analysis of financial risk, are not in the sort of denial about global warming that dominates the present administration. In fact, Goldman Sachs has significant investment in solar energy.

So yes, let's trade an administration dominated by people who make their money in oil and weapons for one dominated by people who make their money in mortgages and information technology. Hooray! I desperately want Obama to win. I hope Wall Street gives him $10 million more.

But I still stand, more than ever, behind the argument of my previous column: that adding a layer of small Internet donations (45% of Obama's money) on top of all the traditional campaign money (55% of Obama's money) does not change the game of politics and money. It just adds another layer to the same old cake. To really change the game, one would need to replace all that traditional money with small Internet donations.

Comments

[egal]

To replace all the income with small donations, you would have to dismantle al the big business infrastructure and companies. The way Obama's doing things is as close as we can get to the so-called true reform you think we're waiting for. It's already here.

[ocinemod]

Egad! Obama's taking big bucks from Wall Street? Now what do we do?
Think of the bright side. He's got another chance to protect the Telecoms in the up and coming vote, he's pandering to McCain and his Fox lapdogs chastising Clark's scandalous comments that prisoner of war status isn't reason enough to become president (lest we forget: Jimi Hendrix was a paratrooper) and just today he affirmed W's extension of federal funds to churches, synagogues and mosques, spreading THE WORD in the name of the almighty dollar.
A few hundred thousand from Goldman-Sachs and Citigroup seems pipsqueak in comparison. So take a breath already.

[oldlakelady]

Name another candidate for president that has ever raised even 45% of their money from small donors. 45% funding from grassroots supporters is still a significant change in the influence of big money and power in a presidential campaign. How much of the money John McCain has been raising has come from small grassroots donors?

[XME]

No doubt Obama gets more money from "fat cats" than from small donors. Makes sense, since even if there are fewer of them, they give more. I think what's significant though, is that without his "small donors', Obama would bring in about 45% less than he his. Even if those fat cats bring in more money, without those small donors, Obama's decrease in donations would be huge. It's pretty amazing.

[Marlyn]

"I don't think Goldman Sachs would push the country into disastrous foreign wars." ???

from "I Claudius": . TRUST NO ONE.

[Excander]

HOW ABOUT WE HAVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE RUN THE COUNTRY!!!!!
IS THIS GUY FOR REAL?

[Marlyn]

"Having Goldman Sachs run the government would be a huge step up from having Halliburton run it." ???

He who chooses the least of two evils soon forgets that he has chosen evil.

[OrganizersWin]

Goldman Sachs... you mean the same GS that the current Secretary of the Treasury used to run?

Sorry, but playing this 'game', and it IS a game, of showing how the democratic candidate is not as evil as the republican, is the same game that has brought us here in 2008. For the last 30 years I have watched this game. Bill Clinton entered in 1992, after 12 years of a dem. congress abetting Reagan-Bush- and in his 1st two years we didn't get Healthcare, but NAFTA. This set the stage for 8 more years of Reagan, with a twist... many dem's fell for it again. Then Joe LIEBERMAN was the dem's answer to Cheney? And we ask now why Pelosi and the rest have sold us all out? Hersh's latest article is further proof, but not necessary. The current dem's crawled out of the same swamp that has been there for decades.

As Clinton didn't hold the criminals from Iran Contra to account, neither will Obama. Obama will not support single payer healthcare, renegotiation of NAFTA, investigations into the war crimes of the Bush regime, etc. He doesn't address the current monetary crisis (derivatives unwinding, noone will), the injustices of the Palestinians, or like Kerry runs for Commander-in-Chief who will protect us.

So get ready to spend time defending Obama against stupid right-wing attacks, instead of holding him and the congress accountable to the things we should. Monica diversion part II? Worse!

[texanna]

Your first sentence is the rebuttal to the premise of this article. I only wish you had gone further to elaborate on the results of the fiscal policies that the GS alums that are currently helming our economy. Until we get federally-financed elections we will not get a President or a Legislature that represents We the People!

[axt113]

Obama is just the first step

[robynuva]

The folks at Goldman Sachs have more money than most, and individually they support Sen. O. Could it be that the disasterous economy courtesy of the R's hasn't been good for them, and they want a change? Is it possible that on an individual basis they just like him better?

Signed.
Fat Cat O contributor (my measly $600 gets me a cool distinction)

[WAstateliberal]

No, they work on Wall Street. That means they are subject to mindless demonization, and Obama should reject their donations puritanically. Even the secretaries and the janitors.

I am a criminal defense attorney who is considering maxing out my Obama donation. Does that mean he is now in the pocket of criminal defense attorneys? Is it possible my reasons for supporting him have nothing to do with my profession, or my income? No, not to the mindless.

[frustratedinohio]

Really funny, Bob. Maybe that "table" that Obama promises everyone will have a seat at, won't be so big after all.

[BillZBubb]

How dare you cast doubts about Saint Obama! Everyone knows he gets all his money from small donors only and is a true progressive. Those are facts that even your real facts cannot disprove!