Who Gives?

Via Mike Crowley, the AP breaks down presidential giving by employer. Barack Obama's biggest sources of funding, for example, are all investment firms: Lehman Brothers, $160,760; Citadel Investment Group, $152,150; Goldman Sachs, $103,550; JP Morgan Chase, $101,950; Citigroup $61,125. John Edwards, by contrast, has two investment firms (Fortress and Goldman Sachs) plus two law firms -- Lerach Coughlin and the Watts Law Firm. Bill Richardson's best fundraising haul comes from employees of the State of New Mexico.

Hillary Clinton's number two company, it turns out, is Cablevision, the company that destroyed the New York Knicks.

Comments

Now introducing Secretary of State Isiah Thomas!

Posted by JP | July 17, 2007 10:31 AM

I'm guessing that with Bill Lerach as a major donor, it might be hard for John Edwards to get money from Silicon Valley Dems. Probably not a big deal for Edwards in any case though. If every poor American he poses with on his campaign donates $5, he will lead the pack in donations.

Posted by Fred | July 17, 2007 10:37 AM

The Richardson number is slightly unnerving to me. On the one hand, it's obviously better to get lots of small donations from your actual constituents than fewer big ones from "special interests". On the other hand, they're basically donating to their boss's campaign, which raises questions of propriety.

Posted by Ginger Yellow | July 17, 2007 10:56 AM

Well, I understand your point, Ginger, but state employees are everything from the State Comptroller, to maintenance service employees, to State Park rangers...

As far as people who work in the state government whose positions are political, I have to things to say:
- I would imagine that many of the folks who contributed to Governor Richardson are Democrats, and it's normal for Democratic politicians to contribute to other Democratic politicians, especially within their state.
- If this seems redundant, forgive me, but it's also just normal in general for political people to make political contributions.

Again, I understand your apprehension, but I think that if you consider the situation carefully, it makes sense and is completely ethical.

Posted by Alison | July 17, 2007 11:35 AM

On the NM state workers, the question is did anyone on Gov Richardson's state staff (as opposed to campaign staff) use any state resources (e.g. email, copies, time "on the clock") in the fundraising? Stuff like that has caused others a lot of trouble.

Posted by Geroge Ryan | July 17, 2007 11:42 AM

"Now introducing Secretary of State Isiah Thomas!"

Hey, that's not a bad idea. Even if Isiah trades our entire foreign policy establishment to Italy for a slow combo guard who's a liability on defense, I figure we're still on the winning end of that deal.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 17, 2007 12:05 PM

Bill Richardson's money base screams of patronage networks and petty corruption. Bill who I was positively predisposed to died to me as a serious candidate after his appearance on MTP where Russert demolished him with a smile and Richardson showed unready for prime time.

If Obama's funding base is investment banks i.e. Wall Street with Hollywood interests coming second as I suspect, that bodes well paradoxically for his policies on free trade. These are actors with a vested interest in it, or at least not a vested interest against it like midwest manufacturers.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | July 17, 2007 12:11 PM

Now introducing Secretary of State Isiah Thomas!

If that happens we might as well start using U.S. currency as toilet paper. Oh wait, that's already happening.

Posted by Peter | July 17, 2007 12:16 PM

Btw, having NM state employees as the main point of strength reveals a tremendous weakness in appealing to elites, decision makers and overall in crossing over to important Dem party constituencies.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | July 17, 2007 12:16 PM

The proper way to have written this post would have been to state that Obama gets his funding from employees of Goldman Sachs, Citadel, etc . . .

None of these firms likely gave any money to any of them. When you make a donation, you are required to list your employer, and that's what gets listed as a purported "major donor".

Big investment banks and law firms tend to have a lot of wealthy people who write checks to politicians, so they end up on everyone's list.

Posted by pj | July 17, 2007 2:57 PM

For Brownback, we have Martin's Famous Pastry Shoppe leading the way. For Hunter, it's a tie between the Taste of Texas Restaurant and Collins Plumbing. Heh.

It's also kind of interesting that the top employers of Ron Paul's donors are the U.S. Army and Navy.

Also worth noting that the two law firms in John Edwards' list are plaintiffs' firms - which, on the whole, I'd classify as less evil than the biggest, richest law firms, whose job is basically to defend the rich and facilitate deal-making.

Posted by Tom | July 17, 2007 3:46 PM

"The proper way to have written this post would have been to state that Obama gets his funding from employees of Goldman Sachs, Citadel, etc . . .

None of these firms likely gave any money to any of them."

Well, here's a special, slightly murky case for you: Goldman Sachs gave hefty six-figure money to Bill Clinton for speeches. That money could conceivable flow to Hillary and then into Hillary's campaign, no?

Posted by Fred | July 17, 2007 6:51 PM