The Center for Responsive Politics gave voters a lovely Valentine's Day gift on February 14 when they released this report on contributions made by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to politicians who are now some of the very men and women who could decide the Democratic nomination. Analysis quickly followed.
Do these contributions make any difference to the direction the superdelegates have now swung? The Center says so. They report:
Campaign contributions have been a generally reliable predictor of whose side a superdelegate will take. In cases where superdelegates had received contributions from both Clinton and Obama, seven out of eight elected officials who received more money from Clinton have committed to her.
Thirty-four of the 43 superdelegates who received more money from Obama, or 79 percent, are backing him.In every case the Center found in which superdelegates received money from one candidate but not the other, the superdelegate is backing the candidate who gave them money.
Adding a bit of mystery to the already mind-numbing superdelegate process are the ways campaign finance reports from Senate candidate committees are filed.
Contributions to candidates for federal office are relatively easy to track, but money given to state and local officials is harder to spot. Campaign finance reports from Senate candidate committees are still filed on paper, making it difficult to know who is receiving money from them. For that reason it's possible that Obama and Clinton have given superdelegates even more than the $904,200 the Center for Responsive Politics has identified
For now, there is a great deal of "he said, she said" between the two candidates on the importance of these superdelegates, or as the Clinton campaign prefers to call them "automatic delegates."
Obama's fact check page lists numerous Clinton inaccuracies on the delegate matter. Harold Ickes, a top Clinton campaign strategist, has his own contradictory words quoted therein.
Now Ickes is the same guy who reminded us that superdelegates will not be descending on us from Mars this summer (thankfully), yet he claimed the superdelegates are more in touch with the issues voters find important than the actual voters themselves.
Some other interesting tidbits gleaned from the Center's report:
Obama is listed as having given $16,000 to Rep. Bruce Braley of Iowa. But, Braley endorsed John Edwards prior to the Iowa caucuses. Sen. Tom Harkin, also of Iowa received a cool $10,000 but hasn't endorsed a soul, yet. However, he has been very vocal about his opposition to seating the Michigan and Florida delegates Clinton is counting on.
Rep. Melissa Bean (IL), received $19,000 from Obama, and is a known member of the moderate to conservative democrats known as the Blue Dog Democrats. Bean has been called out for her vote in favor of CAFTA among other issues.
A sizable group of other Blue Dog Democrats have also received funds from Obama.
Included are Rep. Leonard Boswell (IA), Rep. Joe Baca (CA), Rep. Dennis Cardoza (CA),Rep. Tim Mahoney (FL), and the list goes on. Some received hefty amounts of $18,826 and $19,000 apiece from the senator.
Clinton gave $5,000 to Gov. Bill Richardson. Poor Richardson didn't have the same luck with Obama who gave him zip. Word in the blogosphere was that Richardson was angling for the VP spot with Clinton.
Other notable superdelegates who cleaned up?
Sen. Daniel Akaka (HI), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (MN), Sen. Sherrod Brown (OH), Sen. Bob Casey (PA), and Sen. Robert Byrd (WV) each received $10,000 a piece from both candidates, though none have endorsed either yet.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
THIS OCCURANCE IS TOTALLY NEW TO ME....WHAT HAS BECOME OF THE LAND OF THE FREE AND HOME OF THE BRAVE? SEEMS IT'S ALL A "WHEELING, DEALING POLITICAL PROCESS"...OR PERHAPS I'VE JUST BEEN NAIVE AND IT'S BEEN GOING ON FOREVER????????
I can't believe this is legal, it's shameful to so obviously sell your vote. Shame too on those who would buy their way into office.
This article begs the question: Just how is Obama changing the politics of Washington? He has consistently and inaccurately presented himself as above politics but he has engaged in politics as usual from the beginning and he has not stopped. This is just more evidence of it.
"OBAMA, THY MIDDLE NAME IS HYPOCRACY". JUST CHECK OUT HIS "CHECKERED" RECORD IN THE SENATE...PRESENT BUT NOT "COMMITTED" HARDLY AT ALL......PLAYING BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE... IS THIS WHAT WE WANT IN A PRESIDENT? WE'VE ALREADY HAD A LYING HYPOCRITE IN THE WHITE HOUSE....TIME FOR "CHANGE"!!!!!!!!!
Where have you Liberals been for the past 150 years? During the Civil War, US Congressmen had the names painted on thier office doors, of US Corporations they represented. What goes around, comes around.
We should all know by now, we have the best government money can buy and the most corrupted!
The Supreme Court says it is "freedom of speech".
I call it bribery!
But what do I know?
The government has us stopping at stop signs and stop lights at 2oclock in the morning at intersections where it is obvious there is no other cars on the road, the governed are treated like idiots, but then maybe we are for electing these politicians.
We should all know by now, we have the best government money can buy and the most corrupted!
The Supreme Court says it is "freedom of speech".
I call it bribery!
But what do I know?
The government has us stopping at stop signs and stop lights at 2oclock in the morning at intersections where it is obvious there is no other cars on the road, the governed are treated like idiots, but then maybe we are for electing these politicians.
Between Lobbyist money and paid for votes from super delegates its hard to hide the fact that our government can't work without someone paying someone off. Its a sad state of affairs, ever wonder why very few people vote? is there no hope for honest elections? Will the lying, cheating stealing ever end? When will Americans wake up?
This is absolutely insane irregardless of party affiliation. I could not believe it when I heard it that these super delegates were getting hand outs.
We should all know by now, we have the best government money can buy and the most corrupted!
The Supreme Court says it is "freedom of speech".
I call it bribery!
But what do I know?
The government has us stopping at stop signs and stop lights at 2oclock in the morning at intersections where it is obvious there is no other cars on the road, the governed are treated like idiots, but then maybe we are for electing these politicians.
I'm shocked, I'm SHOCKED, I'm tell you, I'm SHOCKED!
There is graft and corruption in this country, I'm SHOCKED!
The question is how much money came to the Clintons from Communist China after he gave them the "most favored nation treaty" which allowed millions of good paying middle class jobs to leave the country.
Don't blame the candidates, its the system stupid.
America is controlled by money, run by money, manipulated by money.
The only way to change that is using the system to get in power.
Note that the $900K wasn"t distributed evenly:
Clinton gave $205,500 (12% of her elected superdelegates received donations)
Obama gave 698,200 (43% of his elected superdelegates received donations)
http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=336
*****A
Obama is showing his "Chicago Style' with all these payoffs. He is constantly mentioned in a payoff scandal in Illinois (he pleads ignorance) for a "special" loan package he received along with real estate he purchased 40% below market value several years ago.
If it's not Obama...and it's not Clinton...it must be Nader. Hello Ralphie!!!
More of Sen. Obama talking out of both sides of his mouth.
When Obama talks about change, it's in this context;
"Did you want change back on that wonderful donation your giving me?"
I agree kinda looks like Mr Obama is on a shopping spree. Oh thats right he is changing the tone of politics of old ways and replacing it with the new ways. Like 40 Mil a month who needs that much to run a race, Kinda insulting to all those folks that could really use it to ahh you know live. I would bet he is flying in style and sleeping in some very nice places all on other people dollar. Sounds new to me.
If voting could change anything, the elite would call it "Terrorism"
Obama's superdelegate......
Farrakhan hails Obama as 'hope of entire world'
Gee.Farakhan throws his support behind a black man. Now there's a mind-bender. Don't even play the Musim card. It's not there.
no wonder the superdelegates are jumping ship for obama. he pays better.
Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan said Sunday that presidential candidate Barack Obama is the "hope of the entire world" that the U.S. will change for the better.
So. What the fuck are you getting at you dumbass. Anne Coulter is supporting Clinton.
You are trying to use this association to call Obama a racist like Farrakhan. You think calling Obama a racist first is the best strategy. The simple fact is that Obama is not a racist. He is half white and was raised by his white mother and grandparents who he loves dearly. Obama has never run as the "black candidate" and never used race as a wedge issue. If you have a problem with race it is about you not Obama.
This wherein the problem lies! No money exchange should be involved! As soon as money
is involved things become very shady. Change you want then let them set a precedent. How about exercising the government imposed ETHICS Rules "do not accept any gift/money from anyone." Keep it fair. But this only applies to us little people.
This is something I find disturbing about Obama, from the story: "A sizable group of other Blue Dog Democrats have also received funds from Obama."
These are the same Democrats that continue to enable Bush policies, want Telecom Amnesty, and fail to take a stand on anything.
I understand that money talks in politics. I just think the Obama supportors should wake up to this and get off their Obama-is-holier-than-Hillary horse.
I think you make the mistake of thinking Obama and Clinton are appreciably different. They're not. Both are from the center-rightwing of the Dem Party.
In case you've missed this story, Obama's National Finance Chair is billionaire Hyatt hotel and real estate developer and heiress Penny Pritzker who was the architect for the subprime scandal. Her brother, J.B. Pritzker is with the Hillary Clinton campaign.
http://flashpoints.net/index.html#2008-02-20
We have to face the truth that neither of the Democratic candidates represents the people's interests. With Democrats, the descent into fascism is just slightly slower than with Republicans. We keep getting screwed over by the ruling elites in government, in business and in the media. Don't you wish that Ralph Nader's words were coming out of at least one of the Democratic candidates' mouths?
This election cycle is a loss for the American people, no matter which party's candidate wins. Signing statements and a unitary executive are still undemocratic and anti-constitutional no matter which party the signing President is from.
"You got to dance with them what brung you." - Molly Ivins
And that's them with the money.
It's funny. If this story just talked about Clinton giving money to superdelegates, Obama supporters would be calling her all sorts of things.
But since it's clear that Obama is doing politics-as-usual, all I can hear are crickets.
Obama: Change...when it's convenient.
LOLOLOLOL!! Right on, clbrune! HYSTERICAL!
clburne
So Obama giving $4,000 to Hillary's senate re-election campaign isn't a fellow dem helping out another dem to9 get relected?
Please explain how bad it was for Obama to give Hillary's senate re-election campaign?
Jimmyboyo
I didn't say giving money to (buying) superdelegates was good or bad. It's politics as usual.
If the story suggested Clinton was giving money out, but Obama wasn't, then his supporters would be calling her all sorts of "establisment" things (in addition to the endless stream of other insults).
But here, Obama is playing the same game: politics as usual. It simply goes to show that Obama is part and parcel of the same system.
Obama's rhetoric of change, while inspiring, has only so much substance (in fact, his "unity" theme sounds a lot like what Joe Lieberman was preaching during his re-election).
Not only is he playing the same game, he paid them off far more than Clinton did.
In fact, I would say he is far more bought and paid for than Hillary is. That's why the right wing media has backed him so much.
I'm very surprised and disappointed at how much the "liberal" blogs have bought into him, considering how right wing he is. He's really against universal health care, if you look at who he has as an adviser on health care - the guy that helped stop it in the 90's. That's how those Harry and Louise style fliers came about.
I think you're confusing policy changes as opposed to changed politics: These two issues are different. Any politician, irrespective of how progressive or liberal they may be, must play the political game...until the game is changed...or lose elections. It seems to me that a simple way to deal with candidate payments to super delegates would be to prohibit any such donations. Why this hasn't already been accomplished is interesting but obvious: When is the last time there was any suspense in a primary election. If One candidate was the overwhelming primary delegate winner, no one would give a care about payments to super delegates if any such payments were even necessary.
To change the system, you must first get into the system.
Yet once inside, the policies work to the incumbent's advantage, and we've yet to have people who are willing to buck the system which is responsible for their success. Those who run on platforms of "change" find that once elected, there are too few others to have to make good on the promise. Joe Lieberman is a good example of someone who plays games like this.
Lieberman will claim to be for something or other that he's not for but his constituents are for. He gets away with it by saying, "if only it wasn't being filibustered, I'd vote with what the people back home want". He'll vote for cloture knowing full well there are enough votes against cloture, so he'll never have to actually vote and be on the record. That's been Lieberman's record the last 8 years.
Nothing is going to change until people join the Democratic Party and get active in it. There shouldn't be super delegates. I heard Hillary defending super delegates the other day. That they "deserve" extra votes, "wise party elders". How undemocratic is that?
We pick people who pick people. We pick people who decide for us. There is only one place in our democratic republic where the people can have a direct role, and that's during elections. Even then we may or we can participate, but it's not mandated that we must. It's not a Constitutionally-protected right.
I don't know what Obama thinks about that, but Clinton likes it just fine. I don't.
CapitalEye
http://www.capitaleye.org/superdelegates.asp
Obama Payments: $698,426
Clinton Payments: $205,500
The list shows how hard Obama's going after buying the delegate votes and the money shows.
Call her cheap if you want to justify this gap or just take a look at the long list of superdelegates he's buying compared to her.
I rather suspect that if Clinton had extra money she'd be giving it to super delegates at levels comparable to Obama. It may be inappropriate but the donations are legal. If we don't like it we should lobby the party to change the rules. I agree it's unseemly for candidates to give money to delegates. But anyone who wants to win elections will do what's legal to win: That's just the nature of politics.
They are not giving them money at this moment.
They were not fortune tellers able to see the future and know that superdelegates would play such a big role when they like all dems gave from their war chests to less financialy well off dem candidates to help in elections. (run on sentence there)
They both also gave from their war chests to dem candidates who were never and are not super delegates.
This is such a non issue for both Hillary and Obama
Welcome to America, Money Talks, Democracy Walks. We have the Finest Government Money Can Buy . . . We will never recover from this Institutionalized Fascism until we rip the money out of the election process and profit out of lobbying. There are a million other things that will have to be attended to once this occurs and the Beltway Infrastructure will fight it, kicking and screaming; they might well win, however if we don't do it soon it will be too late . . . If it already isn't . . .
Yes indeed. I've argued for some time that we have the best government money can buy. And yes, we need to take all private money out of elections. Public funding for those running in equal amounts and free use of public airways would go a long way of ending the money game. That a member of the House needs to begin a campaigning for re-election as soon as s/he's elected detracts from that person's ability to legislate. Other politicians have it a little easier but if all fund raising was prohibiting we might get more bang for our tax dollars from those expected to lead.
Posted February 23, 2008 | 11:57 AM (EST)