questions about Obama

[Blurred]

So who is the guy that cosigned with him?

Also, how did Obama find the time to write? Ghost writers?

Who is the BIG money behind Obamas campaign?

[gretch6364]

Obama's biggest campaign contributors:

Goldman Sachs $653,030
University of California $576,839
JPMorgan Chase & Co $414,760
Citigroup Inc $408,299
Harvard University $407,219
Google Inc $404,191
UBS AG $389,294
Lehman Brothers $361,482
National Amusements Inc $360,703
Moveon.org $347,463
Sidley Austin LLP $329,776
Microsoft Corp $326,847
Skadden, Arps et al $320,550
Morgan Stanley $307,221
Time Warner $305,538
WilmerHale $275,132
Jones Day $272,755
Latham & Watkins $270,595
University of Chicago $268,285
Stanford University $258,388

[gretch6364]

Why are universities giving money to candidates???

[GBB]

Why are universities giving money to candidates???
My thoughts exactly.

The private universities I can understand, but how is a state school like Cal able to do that?

[gretch6364]

Here is the note that came with table...so a lot of the schools employees may be donating:

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY's List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers.

[squatch]

Why are universities giving money to candidates???

Playing the lobbyist game? Probably the same reason that corporations give money.

[gretch6364]

Here are McCain's...who does not appear to be getting as much money from single groups:

Merrill Lynch $296,913
Citigroup Inc $268,501
Morgan Stanley $234,272
Goldman Sachs $208,395
JPMorgan Chase & Co $179,975
AT&T Inc $174,497
Greenberg Traurig LLP $150,387
Credit Suisse Group $150,025
Blank Rome LLP $149,426
PricewaterhouseCoopers $140,120
UBS AG $139,665
US Government $137,117
Bank of America $129,475
Wachovia Corp $122,846
Lehman Brothers $117,500
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher $104,250
US Army $102,898
FedEx Corp $99,753
Bear Stearns $99,300
Sidley Austin LLP $96,200

[montanaskier]

Bear Stearns....i laughed.

[Blurred]

After ww2, korean war, vietnam, etc so many people were able to go to college through the GI bill. Well, colleges developed huge infrastructures and needed ways to support themselves. They became businesses. They donate for the same reasons businesses do.

[iceman]

Good to see Morgan Stanley on both sides - how about making ME some money you fucktards?

[timvwcom]

YOU IDIOTS!!!

Corporations, companies, sole proprietorship, et al (even Universities) CAN NOT CONTRIBUTE TO ANY FEDERAL CAMPAIGNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When ever you see these lists, this is the total of the private contributions from PEOPLE WHO WORK AT THOSE COMPANIES (AND THEIR FAMILIES)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[gretch6364]

YOU IDIOTS!!!

Corporations, companies, sole proprietorship, et al CAN NOT CONTRIBUTE TO ANY FEDERAL CAMPAIGNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When ever you see these lists, this is the total of the private contributions from PEOPLE WHO WORK AT THOSE COMPANIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You idiot.....read my post about 7 up...no need to use all the caps....geese.

[timvwcom]

You idiot.....read my post about 7 up...no need to use all the caps....geese.

But read the posts BELOW your explanation... Your post info wasn't sinking into the "dense". :D

[doughboyshredder]

YOU IDIOTS!!!

Corporations, companies, sole proprietorship, et al (even Universities) CAN NOT CONTRIBUTE TO ANY FEDERAL CAMPAIGNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When ever you see these lists, this is the total of the private contributions from PEOPLE WHO WORK AT THOSE COMPANIES (AND THEIR FAMILIES)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Quoted for emphasis

Colors are for the benefit of timmeh

[timvwcom]

Colors are for the benefit of timmeh


Ooooh!!! Purdy colors. :yourock:

Edit: Wow, you made one of your "Quote:" labels pink? I didn't know you could color thems...

[Blurred]

But read the posts BELOW your explanation... Your post info wasn't sinking into the "dense". :D

I would like to state for the record that I was just saying colleges ARE businesses, which had nothing to do with campaign finance law stated in your post.

No perty colors Tim? You gonna make the Mime sad.

[doughboyshredder]

So who is the guy that cosigned with him?

Also, how did Obama find the time to write? Ghost writers?

Who is the BIG money behind Obamas campaign?

Rezko did not cosign his loan.



The Obamas bought a mock Georgian mansion in Chicago in June 2005, after he was elected to the US Senate. Mr Rezko’s wife, Rita, bought the adjacent garden on the same day from the same seller. The sellers say that Mr Obama and Mr Rezko toured the property together before the transaction. At the time, it was already known that Mr Rezko was under criminal investigation. Mrs Rezko paid the full asking price of $625,000 (£315,000) for the garden. The Obamas paid $1.65 million for the house – $300,000 below asking price. The garden could be accessed only through the Obamas’ property, and Mr Obama’s gardener mowed the lawn. In January 2006, Mrs Rezko sold a 10ft strip of her garden to the Obamas for $104,500 and a fence was erected between the two lots. Mrs Rezko has since sold the remainder of the garden to a lawyer for her husband’s business

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3486054.ece

As far as the "big" money behind his campaign, there really doesn't seem to be anything too fishy going on there.



Despite the media attention the campaign has grabbed by attracting 258,000 donors—in many cases people of modest means who have given over the Internet—a much smaller group of large donors provides most of the funds for the campaign. And those large donors are best tapped through fundraisers who can call on networks of acquaintances and business associates who can easily write big checks.

The bundlers are crucial to raising money for a presidential primary campaign because federal law limits individuals to contributions of no more than $2,300 per candidate.

Sixty percent of the Obama campaign's funds come from people who have given at least $1,000, the kind of donors who are most often recruited by bundlers. Less than 30 percent of his contributions came from people who gave less than $200.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-070725obama,0,7641355.story

[spindrift]

I would like to state for the record that I was just saying colleges ARE businesses, which had nothing to do with campaign finance law stated in your post.



Broadly speaking, this is not correct. Colleges and universities operate with a very different mindset than a business does. And a very different set of regulations govern their worlds.

Many do indeed have significant infrastructure and related cashflow needs.

[timvwcom]

As far as the "big" money behind his campaign, there really doesn't seem to be anything too fishy going on there.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-070725obama,0,7641355.story

Good info... but the article and stats you quote here are from July 2007, over a year ago. Obama's number of individual donors now are in the low millions.

[Blurred]

Broadly speaking, this is not correct. Colleges and universities operate with a very different mindset than a business does. And a very different set of regulations govern their worlds.

Many do indeed have significant infrastructure and related cashflow needs.

You're just arguing semantics now.
Just because colleges aren't there to make a profit, their systems run much easier when lubricated with money...and what better way to generate money than to approach it like a business.

[gretch6364]

You're just arguing semantics now.
Just because colleges aren't there to make a profit, their systems run much easier when lubricated with money...and what better way to generate money than to approach it like a business.

Universities are designed to make a profit....it is just what they do with that profit that defines them as "not-for-profit." I will try to find some of the numbers on the financial holdings of some of these big Universities....if I remember right, I think it is Harvard that has a shit ton of cash holdings.

[gretch6364]

Here you go:

Just as most colleges look up to Harvard University, most investment managers look up to Harvard Management Co., the in-house firm that manages $27 billion for the university. Over the past decade, Harvard has posted a 15.9% annual return, vs. just 10.1% for the median large institutional fund. That feat has generated an extra $12.2 billion -- nearly as much as the entire endowment at Yale University, the second-wealthiest. Says James Swanson, chief investment strategist at MFS Investment Management: "They are the Mickey Mantles of the investing world."

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_52/b3914469.htm

[Blurred]

Universities are designed to make a profit....it is just what they do with that profit that defines them as "not-for-profit." I will try to find some of the numbers on the financial holdings of some of these big Universities....if I remember right, I think it is Harvard that has a shit ton of cash holdings.

Yeah, we're saying the same thing, but I'd like to see those numbers.

[gretch6364]

Yeah, we're saying the same thing, but I'd like to see those numbers.

Look one post up...$27 billion! That is just crazy. T

[timvwcom]

Update... donor numbers thru the end of July 2008 (Obama has not yet released August '08 numbers);

Number of unique donors:
Barack Obama - over 2 million
John McCain - over 600,000

[spindrift]

You guys are wildly off base on the college and university thing. Those schools need to tend their endowments in order to fulfill their missions over the long haul. What do you expect them to do, put the money in a passbook account and lose to inflation? Everyone should hope those schools knock it out of the park with their investments. Go check on what it really costs most students to attend Harvard or Yale or Princeton or Grinnell or Stanford or Williams - and a number of others. And I'm not talking about "rack rates". And read up on "need blind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Need-blind)" admissions while you are at it.

That level of financial aid and admission without regard to ability to pay demands top notch stewardship of endowment funds. Especially if schools are going to be able to continue to offer such aid into the future. Go figure out how much endowment money it takes to fund a million dollars worth of financial aid every year in perpetuity without being savaged by inflation. Then multiply by 30 or a hundred or more depending on the school's size and policies. While there's plenty of room for debate on which financial aid philosophy is "better", there is no doubt the schools in question are doing a huge social good. It'd be good if more schools had big endowments.

Now where were we?

[Blurred]

Now where were we?

Somewhere really boring that has nothing to do with the thread topic? ;):smile:

[gretch6364]

You guys are wildly off base on the college and university thing. Those schools need to tend their endowments in order to fulfill their missions over the long haul. What do you expect them to do, put the money in a passbook account and lose to inflation? Everyone should hope those schools knock it out of the park with their investments. Go check on what it really costs most students to attend Harvard or Yale or Princeton or Grinnell or Stanford - and a number of others. And I'm not talking about "rack rates". And read up on "need blind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Need-blind)" admissions while you are at it.

That level of financial aid and admission without regard to ability to pay demands top notch stewardship of endowment funds. Especially if schools are going to be able to continue to offer such aid into the future. Go figure out how much endowment money it takes to fund a million dollars worth of financial aid every year in perpetuity without being savaged by inflation. Then multiply by 30 or a hundred or more depending on the school's size and policies. While there's plenty of room for debate on which financial aid philosophy is "better", there is no doubt the schools in question are doing a huge social good. It'd be good if more schools had big endowments.

Now where were we?

My suggestion would be instead of continuing to raise tuition year after year and accumulating $27 billion in cash, give out more financial aid. Tuition just seems out of control and a lot of the schools obviously don't need the increase to survive.

Ok..sorry....back on topic...what were we talking about? Oh yeah, Obama..

[spindrift]

My suggestion would be instead of continuing to raise tuition year after year and accumulating $27 billion in cash, give out more financial aid.

They do. Read what I said. Carefully. Then go look around at reality wrt to those schools. "Rack rate" does not reflect what anyone of modest or even middle class means pays. Most of those schools offer scholarships, grants and work-study jobs in combinations that fully eliminate loans or cap loans at relatively modest levels. Go check on reality before you knock them. I'll shut up now...

[Powow]

My suggestion would be instead of continuing to raise tuition year after year and accumulating $27 billion in cash, give out more financial aid. Tuition just seems out of control and a lot of the schools obviously don't need the increase to survive.
http://www.fao.fas.harvard.edu/fact_sheet.htm they already give out PLENTY of financial aid. Harvard can accumulate $27 billion in spite of giving lots of financial aid.

[spindrift]

http://www.fao.fas.harvard.edu/fact_sheet.htm they already give out PLENTY of financial aid. Harvard can accumulate $27 billion in spite of giving lots of financial aid.

OK, I guess I wasn't quite ready to shut up ;)

A better way to model this is that they can give out plenty of financial aid because they have been effective at growing and tending their endowment. Same for the other schools mentioned above (and a number of others). There are many schools that would love to offer more financial aid - but they simply can not. The resources required to do this through time are immense.
Now I'll shut up...

[jon gaper]

look up khalid mansoor, who has been pushing for obama with saudi money since he pressured to get him into harvard.
what happened to the $100 million that disappeared from the annenberg grant to chicago education, administered by ayers and obama?

[David Witherspoon]

Here are McCain's...who does not appear to be getting as much money from single groups
He isn't getting as much money, period.
But what he is getting is coming from people with more money - fewer of them, donating as much as they legally can.
Obama is getting smaller donations from far more people. (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.php?sortby=P)

People like us. (http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1980934&highlight=match+dollar+offer+donate#post1980934)

[Blurred]

He isn't getting as much money, period.
But what he is getting is coming from people with more money - fewer of them, donating as much as they legally can.
Obama is getting smaller donations from far more people. (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.php?sortby=P)

People like us. (http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1980934&highlight=match+dollar+offer+donate#post1980934)

HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO DOUCHEBAG!!!!!


NICE IGNORE FUNCTION, ASSWIPE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!