digg

Join DiggAbout
See the original image at graphics8.nytimes.com

What the Candidates Have Raised and Spent (so far)

graphics8.nytimes.com — Senators Obama & Clinton have each spent more than $100 Million on their campaigns so far. But Mr. Obama is in a much better financial position going into the remaining primaries because he more money in the bank.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • seattlerock, on 02/24/2008, -17/+16More money to pay for super delegates as well
    • NoStoppingUs, on 02/24/2008, -33/+6THERES NO RON PAUL. IM OUTRAGED! EVERYONE CALL THEIR LOCAL NEWSPAPER EDITORS! LETS PROTEST OUTSIDE OF FAUX NEWS. YEAAAHH!!!! RON PAUL IS GOING TO WINNN!!!11!!!

      remember when everyone said ron paul was going to go down in flames, despite the "ron paul mania"?

      damn, it feels good to be right.
      • NoStoppingUs, on 02/24/2008, -19/+3hmm. it seems the paul bots are alive and well. my bad!

        still, it feels good to be right.
        • mrvalue, on 02/24/2008, -6/+11I never supported Ron Paul. But I found you annoying. Dugg down.
    • JimmySpaza, on 02/24/2008, -4/+4Dude, you are so getting dugg down by those who think the Democratic Party can do no wrong. How dare you make fun of their corruption!!!
    • LeeSoong, on 02/24/2008, -2/+5Once Again, CENSORSHIP of even the EXISTENCE of Ron Paul.

      Go to hell and burn New York Times.

      Why didn't you list 'Top Tier' Rudy G. ? (/sarcasm)


      http://www.ronpaul2008.com/about
    • 5urr3al5am, on 02/24/2008, -1/+2Wow! The Democrats are really digging deep to force their message! Hillary has spent more than two and a half times of what McCain has spent, and Obama is close to 3 times the amount! Wasn't this an EARTH SHATTERING issue last race? When the democratic media judged/accused/hung the republicans for spending on the election? Wow such hypocrites!
  • Jeffmr1, on 02/24/2008, -25/+260Isn't there a third republican still in the race, with very interesting fund-raising stats?
    • newman1320, on 02/24/2008, -72/+25No, there's not! Wake up man...the "Ron Paul Revolution" never caught any steam pal.
      • metalmilitia430, on 02/24/2008, -13/+27The "Ron Paul Revolution" has just began.
        • exomniac, on 02/24/2008, -7/+19Amen, brother.
        • NoStoppingUs, on 02/24/2008, -16/+9LOL.
        • Magnus150, on 02/24/2008, -9/+2Really? Where? He has like what, 16 delegates and people that DO know of him think of him as an extremist.
      • d03boy, on 02/24/2008, -9/+11In 5 years when you wake up and finally realize that it happened beneath your nose.... i'd like to see your face
        • chaosium, on 02/24/2008, -5/+4Like a whiff of bad salmon or dog feces.
        • LeeSoong, on 02/24/2008, -3/+1The Super Highway is just a Myth ! HA HA,

          Oh, and by the way - we're from the government, and we are here to take your house.

          Texas, taking it hard and fast, up the middle, from Mexico...
    • ncairns, on 02/24/2008, -58/+24Given the mathematical impossibility of his getting the nomination, I'd said it's safe to say we can continue to ignore him.
      • understudy, on 02/24/2008, -13/+42You don't ignore him Nick. Your negative comments are all over every Ron Paul story.

        There is no 'mathematical impossibility of his getting the nomination.' Granted, his chances of the Republican nomination are slim, but there are a few scenarios (however unlikely) in which he could win the nomination.

        In any case, it is also unlikely that Huckabee will receive the nomination and yet his numbers are included on the graph. Therein lies the inconsistency. Furthermore, in matters of fundraising, Paul is most relevant to the pack.

        Just print Paul's fundraising numbers! What harm will that do?

        _
        • ncairns, on 02/24/2008, -20/+9Is there a reason you called me 'Nick'? I mean, given that my name's Eric and all...

          And, no - it really is mathematically impossible for him to take the nomination. There's this common misconception among people who suck at math that something with an infinitesimal probability of happening is 'still possible'. Colloquially, maybe. Not mathematically. It means it is a statistical certainty that it will not happen.

          It is not, just yet, impossible for Huckabee to take the nomination. It is highly, highly unlikely - but given he has over 200 more delegates than Paul, it is completely reasonable to list him and not Paul.

          • understudy, on 02/24/2008, -1/+21There's this common misconception among people who suck at English to label something 'impossible' when they mean to say 'improbable.'

            Something with an 'infinitesimal probability of happening' IS possible by definition. It is not, however probable.

            Orson Scott Card once said "You can't rule out the impossible, because you never know which of your assumptions about what was possible might turn out to be false."

            _
          • Mrdudeperson, on 02/24/2008, -14/+9Dude, calm down. Ron Paul never had a chance, lets just leave it at that.
          • spudnic, on 02/24/2008, -12/+2There's this common misconception among people who suck at English to think words have absolute definitions.
            'Impossible' in common usage is accepted to mean 'infinitesimal probability of happening' as well as meaning something cannot happen.
          • cwgannon, on 02/24/2008, -10/+7Who here has been on the sidelines for this whole Ron Paul thing but has gotten ***** and giggles from it all the way?

            Personally, I hold Ron Paul and scientology in the same regard: Neither's a threat, unless either gathers a *****-ton of devotees. I don't even want to consider the danger posed to all of us should they wisen up to the fruits of their merger.

            But really, by way of delegate counting, it really does seem to be impossible for him to receive the nomination. I'd love to see otherwise though so that this ***** Ron Paul parade can keep on marching!
          • ncairns, on 02/24/2008, -3/+2@understudy

            No, I meant to say impossible. Mostly because it's impossible.

            And, no, in mathematics and semantics something with an 'infinitesimal' possibility of happening is not, in fact, possible. That's what the word 'infinitesimal' means. It's the same reason an asymptote can't reach zero. But, then, I guess you suck at math *and* English.
          • LeeSoong, on 02/24/2008, -3/+3Ron Paul speaks the truth, there is no room for that kind of behavior in the Federal Government.
          • Magnus150, on 02/24/2008, -1/+2Dude, no matter how hard you guys wish or pray to your respective Gods, Ronny boy isn't gonna get the nomination. McCain is quite close to the required delegates and Paul has a grand total of 16. Unless the FSM came down himself and used his noodly appendage to rig the Diebold machines, there is NO WAY IN HELL that he is getting the nomination. Besides, Dems are winning this year anyway, so what's it matter?
          • understudy, on 02/24/2008, -1/+1@ncairns

            You can try to rationalize it all you want, but the definitions still stand. Moreover, you'll notice that 'impossible' isn't listed among the dozens of synonyms for infinitesimal . . . because they aren't synonymous.

            http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/infinitesima ...

            My original point stands that Ron Paul has a very small chance under improbable circumstances. It may be tiny, but it isn't technically 'impossible.'

            _


          • gofalcons, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1ncairns, for a guy with "two degrees", you certainly spend a lot of time on digg searching for Ron Paul stories to post negative comments on, A LOT of time. Always trying to paint him as a racist, when honestly, i wouldn't care if he was a former member of the KKK, if he's not gonna push his views on anyone else and if i'll be able to live free, he could wear his white hood to his inaguration for all I care. *yeah, i am black by the way* That's why people love ron paul, because some of us want to be treated like adults and not live in a politically correct nanny state where the government is your mommy and daddy for the rest of your life. If you don't wanna carry a gun, then don't, but don't tell me i can pick up a gun to fight in America's wars of conquest *yeah, I'm in the Army*, but i can't have one to defend myself or my family. If you don't wanna don't wanna smoke weed, then don't, but don't tell me I can't. If you don't wanna smoke cigarrettes, then don't, but don't try to ban me from doing it. Get my point?
      • fajitamelt, on 02/24/2008, -5/+0Hello.
      • d03boy, on 02/24/2008, -11/+8Actually he has a better chance than Huckabee does...
    • onetimer, on 02/24/2008, -57/+13Oh yeah, you mean the one who's last "money-bomb" raised approximately 46,000 dollars? With about 200 donors in total?

      You failed. Take your fringe ideas elsewhere please.
      • homah, on 02/24/2008, -6/+39What you consider to be a failure, many consider to be a success. Going from under 1% support to near 10% nationally now with very little media coverage is quite an accomplishment. It is unfortunate that being a strict constitutionalist is still a "fringe" idea to most people, such as yourself, but change is coming, albeit gradually.
        • NoStoppingUs, on 02/24/2008, -8/+9very little media attention? dude. what media outlets do you pay attention to?

          fortunately, most of the stories revolved around his supporters acting like complete idiots.

          ron paul's campaign was one of the worst run campaigns in american history. so much money, yet wasted so quickly. theres a ron paul for pres sign by my house. that money could have been used in an early state to help get attention. complete amateurs!
      • Neoanarchist, on 02/24/2008, -6/+14Onetimer obviously considers the founding fathers to have harbored "fringe" ideas. Onetime, your ignorance is absolutely depressing and I hope you're not an American for my sake. I don't want uninformed morons with their heads up their asses with only their ears sticking out so they can hear O'Reilly's next blaspheme, voting in my election. Unfortunately, I'd assume that about 50% of voters are just that. Considering the 2004 elections; what a disgrace.
        • cwgannon, on 02/24/2008, -2/+11Look, we're sorry your guy lost. But just because we don't approve of him does not give you the right to say ***** like "I hope you're not an American for my sake" and referring to us as "uninformed morons with their heads up their asses with only their ears sticking out so they can hear O'Reilly's next blaspheme."

          In the world of grownups and adults, a certain modicum of respect is paid to other individuals, whether or not they support your choice for President. So, tell you what: Let it go and leave it be or suck it up and piss off, *****.
        • onetimer, on 02/24/2008, -4/+7Yep. You got it. Because I don't agree with his ideas (nationwide ban on abortion, cutting off funding for scientific researching, abolishing the FDA), I MUST be unamerican.

          It's sad that the digg hive mind diggs you children up.
      • exomniac, on 02/24/2008, -5/+3Take our fringe ideas elsewhere? What would you have left to do if you couldn't troll Ron Paul articles?
      • Spudster, on 02/24/2008, -9/+9If there's one thing Paulbots are still good at, it's digging down anything that questions their ideology...
    • Jeffmr1, on 02/24/2008, -7/+137Kind of funny, i'll admit im a Paul fan, but my comment wasn't meant to be pro Paul in any way. It's just funny that all of you will condone blacking out any serious candidate just because you don't agree with what they or their supporters say. This graphic which shows fund-raising figures should include a candidate when they still have millions of dollars on hand, no debt, and are out raising some of the others candidates which were featured. I don't harbor any illusions that Paul could still win the race, however i'm willing to admit that it's never over until it's over, Lincoln won the nomination with only twenty-two committed delegates. Media blackouts of candidates such as Paul, Kucinich, or Gravel (not that the latter two had nearly as much success as Paul) only serves to endorse the status quo and eliminate ideas construed as "fringe."
      • madfrogurt, on 02/24/2008, -32/+7At this point its not a blackout, its simply only showing people who have a shot at the candidacy. I think this graph could have omitted Huckabee and I would not have cared. This whole mentality of "I didn't major in mathematics, I majored in miracles" mentality of ignoring reality is astounding. And while you sound slightly more level headed than the average RP supporter, do you really think the GOP is going to skip McCain, Huckabee, Romney, and Guiliani to pick an anti war candidate? Honestly, do you think the republicans are going to wake up and see how great your man is?
        • Jeffmr1, on 02/24/2008, -4/+30Read what i said, i harbor NO illusions that Paul will win the race, i only admit to myself that a possibility still exists although it is an insignificant possibility. So i hope that you do see that im not "majoring in miracles" (although i've always done well in all of my math classes). You prove my statement in your post, they included Huckabee, who has "no shot at winning" but fail to include somebody who has seriously out-raised him who is still in the race. I also believe that the MSM needs to still feature all candidates running (if edwards or kucinich or thompson or hunter, etc., were running still, i'd abhor the thought of eliminating any of them from political discourse), there are still many states which have not voted or caucused in their primaries and they should know all of the options before them, just as the early states got a "fair shake" at studying some of the "fringe views" from the MSM when they actually gave him a mention every now and then.
        • mooseontheloose, on 02/24/2008, -3/+8Was this a chart of what each candidate raised or what remaining candidates are viable? Oh, the former? OK then.
        • gofalcons, on 02/25/2008, -0/+0So wait, even though Giulianni didn't win a state either, he was considered "viable" until the day he dropped out. McCain wasn't considered "viable" until after the New Hampshire primary, when the media started repeating his name over and over again, just like they had done with Giulianni and Romney months before.
    • TheWorm, on 02/24/2008, -18/+5Yeah, it's just that nobody is sure why he's still IN the race.
      • Sh0cker, on 02/24/2008, -3/+15Lets use common sense

        It's because his supporters (myself included) want him to be in the race, it is that simple.

        Can you understand that little bit? Or does it HAVE to be more complicated than that?
        • virtualball, on 02/24/2008, -5/+6Doesn't it seem a little ridiculous that he's still running if it's mathematically impossible for him to win the race? It just seems like he's wasting his money right now... :/
        • TheWorm, on 02/24/2008, -5/+2If you were using your common sense you wouldn't even want him to still be wasting his time and money being in the race. He should save it for next time around. Common sense is dropping out of a race when the score is 918-16.
          I would actually like to see how Paul is spending his money, however the reason he is not included here is because the chart is focusing on relevant candidates.
        • mike17032, on 02/24/2008, -4/+2Right, so the dozen of you out there still want him in.
        • gofalcons, on 02/25/2008, -0/+0Yes, the dozens of us who have given millions to his campaign. *you can only give 2,300 by the way, didn't know if you knew that or not* But he's not wasting his time, he's getting his message out there. If you've noticed, he's already changed the race, remember when Romney was talkin about doubling the size of guantanamo? Remember how everyone just happened to start talking more about states rights? He's not an establishment politician. His aren't radical, they're what this country was founded on. No foreign entaglements, backing money with gold or silver, get our troops off of foreign soil, I don't understand how this is considered radical? He's not an isolationist, Bush is an isolationist, not talking to your enemies or caring what the rest of the world thinks when you decide to invade a country you had no business in in the first place, pretty much, isolating yourself from the rest of the world. Not getting in other people's business or trying to force our way of life onto them, that's non-interventionism. Ron Paul has even said he would go to war to defend the country, but defending the country does not involve aggressively attacking other countries.
    • phybere, on 02/24/2008, -1/+21If we're really trying to be fair, we should complain that Mike Gravel (D) isn't on the list either. Then again, most people don't even know who he is, but he's still in the race.
      • misconstrued, on 02/24/2008, -0/+10I agree. Put him and Paul on there...
    • topgigmedia, on 02/24/2008, -9/+3what about the green party candidate(s)? (not that I am a supporter, but just asking) Oh wait, this about $, not the OTHER green stuff, my bad.
    • mike17032, on 02/24/2008, -15/+3Not one that matters, no.

      RP is out of the race, and has been for a long long time. He just isnt man enough to admit it.

      Hope you rontards enjoyed donating to his retirement fund.
      • arcooke, on 02/24/2008, -1/+4Paulbots.. now rontards..?

        When are you people going to grow the ***** up? I'll take support and dedication over name-calling and immaturity any day.
    • rafter, on 02/25/2008, -0/+2theres also a 3rd dem still in the race as well.
  • orlando37, on 02/24/2008, -21/+8Am I the only one that is amazed at how much money Obama is raising?
    • Spudster, on 02/24/2008, -4/+4Am I the only one appalled at ridiculous lack of effective campaign finance laws in the United States?
  • GhostyBoy, on 02/24/2008, -28/+179Where's Paul?
    • chris9902, on 02/24/2008, -57/+17he lost. get over it.
      • fuckedupworld, on 02/24/2008, -8/+60Is he a presidential candidate that's currently running? Has he raised more then 2x Huckabee? Should he be on this graph?
        Yes.
    • onetimer, on 02/24/2008, -42/+15Where's Alan Keyes? John Cox? Why don't you people ever ask about them. You are always claiming "media blackout", when in fact paul has been on nearly every single debate the other candidates have, and on every talkshow / news network as the other candidates. There are actually candidates who have NEVER been to a debate or interviewed.

      Paul lost, and big-time, considering that he was the fundraising leader for the last quarter (poor suckers who maxed out with $2,300). WIth the millions he had, he could have easily run more commercials and ads than any of the other candidate, yet chose not to.

      PS: He will NOT be returning your money.
      • GhostyBoy, on 02/24/2008, -6/+36I agree that those candidates should have gotten more time as well. Kucinich too. But Paul actually beat every Republican candidate in at least one primary, and had a ton of spontaneous support from the grassroots, but you could watch CNN all day long and hear his name once for every hundred times that another candidate was mentioned.

        The day he made 6 million and beat every record CNN spent the entire day talking about some lame endorsement that Huckabee got. And the Iowa caucuses with the huge missing slice that could have easily fit Paul's name into it, I suppose that was just "format" right? The examples of the media ignoring Paul are countless, yet as with so many other things you continue to chalk it up to coincidence.

        Most Americans don't know who Paul is or what he stands for, and it doesn't help that dudes like you go around spreading unsubstantiated b.s. about him being racist. Pretty much no one believes that except for gullible idiots and those who engage in slander.
        • orca94, on 02/24/2008, -6/+3Right... So when all that racist stuff was printed in his newsletters he had nothing to do with it right? That's ***** *****. If I was someone in public office and had a newsletter you better damn well be sure I'd be reading it to make sure ***** like that wasn't in it(if I didn't agree with of course, which Paul by virtue of his doing nothing did). He's completely responsible for what was printed and by association a racist, no if's and's or but's about it.
        • gofalcons, on 02/25/2008, -0/+0Yeah he was, and he apologized. Does that make him a racist that he trusted some dumbass to write a newsletter with his name on it? No. But all this racism talk is so funny to me. You act as if because you try to paint him a racist with guilt by association, his ideas don't matter. You know who else was racist? THE FOUNDING FATHERS. OOOOH, uh oh, i guess their ideas don't matter either! Let's throw out the constitution! *Bush is way ahead of us on that one* Yes, all the crap they wrote about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and all men being equal, didn't apply to us black folk at the time, we were still slaves. So is that what you're saying, you're saying that becuase you're trying to stick him as a racist, his ideas don't matter?
      • Cleaner44, on 02/24/2008, -10/+6Why is it always about money with you? Are you really that cheap? Oh, let me guess, now you will call me a bigot. Jewish or not you are cheap and don't get that people donate their own hard earned money for someting they believe in, no strings attached. Maybe you should try giving yourself sometime. Don't forget to call me a bigot...
        • onetimer, on 02/24/2008, -14/+4Almost sounds like you're trying to cover up for something...
          • Cleaner44, on 02/24/2008, -5/+15Strange, I thought I was very clear. Let's me make it VERY simple for you kid, you are a cheapo.

            People that gave to Ron Paul do not want their money back, they want their country back. Give sometime and you might find you like it.
          • f3l1x, on 02/24/2008, -2/+1Please, he wont understand, hes just a troll that goes out of his way to respond and censor.. i mean bury every Ron Paul story he can find. grow the ***** up onetimer. ...or not. Your useless either way. The best you can hope for is to rot in the ground and become fertilizer. And if your really lucky a tree might use you as food one day. That would be your one great accomplishment.
      • understudy, on 02/24/2008, -7/+20He may lose the nomination, but he galvanized a nationwide movement.

        That's quite an accomplishment for someone who was written off from day one.

        _
        • mike17032, on 02/24/2008, -4/+2Keep telling yourself that.

          Most people have no idea who he is. And of those that do, most see him as the moonbat crazy he is.
        • gofalcons, on 02/25/2008, -0/+0Yeah, and usually when you ask those people why they think he's crazy, they won't have any other answer than "Well, that's what CNN told me, LOL!"
      • Qtip42, on 02/24/2008, -4/+6onetimer is a neocon stooge who makes a living off talking ***** about ron paul. He's in every paul thread kicking up some sort of b/s. Ignore the troll
    • ssn697, on 02/24/2008, -25/+5Settling his divorce in England...
    • adventflux, on 02/24/2008, -15/+5This is censorship!
    • InSectWar, on 02/24/2008, -22/+16Who?
    • nittanylion06, on 02/24/2008, -19/+14...down in Texas hanging on to his Congressional seat by his fingertips
    • phybere, on 02/24/2008, -6/+19Where's Gravel?
    • dustinmacdonald, on 02/24/2008, -10/+5Flying around in his blimp.
    • sahaskatta, on 02/24/2008, -1/+19i believe his total raised money is around $28 million, so he should most definitely be on that list.
      • mike17032, on 02/24/2008, -13/+2They are only listing people that mattered, not fringe wackjobs polling at 4%.
        • fatlip, on 02/24/2008, -1/+9judging by all your comments... you're a *****
    • smartguy911, on 02/24/2008, -1/+17i think nytimes likes it when it's only 4. it makes the job of the graphic designer a little easier. less work for them. Also, it will make mccain look really bad since Paul has the most cash on hand and received majority of his money from $100-$500 group.
    • mike17032, on 02/24/2008, -10/+2Dead last with no chance in hell of winning anything.
      • misconstrued, on 02/24/2008, -1/+2How many comments are you going to write like this? Grow up...
    • KingGorilla, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1oh how I miss you kucinich
  • ScottooMc, on 02/24/2008, -49/+11First - Paul should have run as an Independent.
    Second - The country isn't ready for Ron Paul
    Third - Wake the hell up, ITS OVER FOR PAUL
    • ncairns, on 02/24/2008, -13/+21First - that wouldn't have changed anything.
      Second - the country 'isn't ready' for 19th-century ideology?
      Third - yep.
      • ScottooMc, on 02/24/2008, -6/+9If he ran as an Independent he would get an Independent nomination and thus be in a general election. I may have phrased the second one wrong. Its not that the country isn't ready, its that the country is scared of the libertarian views that Paul has because he would surely end the many socialized inefficient programs that so many people think that we need. Btw ncairns, mocking is sophomoric and insulting.
        • AShriveledSack, on 02/25/2008, -0/+2i am pretty sure 90% of digg comments are meant to insult someone else
  • thelastcivilian, on 02/24/2008, -4/+102I don't want to get dugg down for sheer curiosity here, but does anyone know the figures for Ron Paul? I'm not a supporter, but after seeing so many stories make it to the front page about record fundraising, etc., I'd like to know where that money has gone.
    • mntbikeracer1, on 02/24/2008, -26/+2Apparently he wasted most of it.
      • misconstrued, on 02/24/2008, -1/+2He has more cash on hand than any of the other Republican candidates...
    • mike17032, on 02/24/2008, -16/+3To his retirement fund.

      Lets all have a good laugh at the spamming rontards who bought into his scam. He never had any intention of spending the money, you are all suckers for pissing it into the sewer that was his fund raising.
      • misconstrued, on 02/24/2008, -1/+2Why are some of you Obama people so ***** crazy about hating Ron Paul and his supporters? If you don't think he is any threat to your candidate why waste your time making posts like these?
      • f3l1x, on 02/24/2008, -1/+1You dumb *****, contributions don't work that way. This is why you don't deserve to vote.
    • Zarxrax, on 02/24/2008, -2/+13http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N ...
      Ron Paul has raised over 32 million dollars as of January 31. He has over 6 million still on hand.

      What his supporters grasp, but the non-supporters don't grasp, is that this is NOT just a presidential race. This is a revolution, as the supporters have called it since the beginnings. Win or lose, we are not going to just "go away" after this race is over. We are here to fight. We are here to stay.
      • newnie, on 02/26/2008, -0/+0Individual contributions
        $32,563,613
        100%
  • steelersfan7roe, on 02/24/2008, -11/+81Look at the HUGE disparity between the size of donations obama receives. 42% of his donations are from contributions UNDER 500 dollars.

    The PEOPLE are the ones behind his campaign.
  • madfrogurt, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3I'm most surprised about the amount of money Hillary got for the general election (20 million compared to the 8.9 million she received for the primaries). Obama's money is practically reversed: 19 million for the primaries and 6 million for the general election. I think Hillary's "inevitability" campaign bit her in the ass: she had less money than her upstart opponent, and all those general election millions will have to be returned.
    • TylerL82, on 02/24/2008, -1/+1Most candidates allocate their donators' first $2,300 towards the primary campaign, and the second (up to) $2,300 towards the presidential election.
    • theblacknight, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1So Hillary spent more money this month than she made in donations for the primaries....if she doesn't win the primaries, what happens?
  • streak, on 02/24/2008, -27/+20If elected, you'll never see the end of Obama's spending, especially if Democrats retain control of Congress. He wants a $4K per year tuition tax credit for every student. No wonder he's popular with the young. Colleges and universities will love that, too. As if tuitions aren't already sky high, Obama's suggestion will increase demand for higher education even further and allow educational institutions to maintain or even raise tuitions even further. The young will wind up in a situation not very different than they face right now. We'd be better off using that money to increase employment, and thus reduce the demand for higher education, which would force educational institutions to lower tuition.
    • d03boy, on 02/24/2008, -3/+2You were +4 and now you're at 0. WiIthout a single comment. No legit refutations?
    • phybere, on 02/24/2008, -2/+13Oh my god, the young will become educated! Think of the consequences!
      • felman87, on 02/24/2008, -1/+3no more idiots?
      • Spudster, on 02/24/2008, -3/+5Fewer republican victories?
      • Qtip42, on 02/24/2008, -3/+4The consequence is giving money to people who don't ***** earn it. Are you entitled to that 4k? Really? You just want everything given to you? Are you serious?

        Forcing colleges to lower their tuition is the goal....Not give them a better incentive to raise prices another 4k. How does that help young people?
        • catachip, on 02/24/2008, -3/+7Listen you *****, Obama is not just giving out $4,000 checks. You have to work in public service for a year. It's actually a pittance for what will probably be a lot of hard work. It is earned money, not a handout.
    • catachip, on 02/24/2008, -2/+8Universities are not job factories. University education is about creating high minding individuals with a broad depth of knowledge about the world, history, and various topics. An educated population is better able to think critically and understand complex problems. Your contention that creating a higher demand for education would be a bad thing is disgusting, and probably explains why we are slipping farther and farther behind other industrialized countries. Also, Obama supports a 4k credit for a year of service to the country. Something that benefits everyone. I know an educated public scares conservatives, because educated people tend to be more liberal. But please, take it some where else.
    • Lane, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2The middle class jobs do not exist. technology continues to turn what once was a complicated task into button pushing barely worthy of minimum wage. over half the jobs in the United States will soon require a 4 year college diploma. I too would personally would rather see money expanding community college rather than handing a blank check to universities though.
  • JimmySpaza, on 02/24/2008, -24/+10How can Obama possibly raise 137 MILLION dollars and not be beholden to someone or some corporation?

    Some powerful people or business interests must want Obama elected...why?
    • karenflower, on 02/24/2008, -14/+12He's with the CFR.
      • MikeSD34, on 02/24/2008, -0/+4The Council on Foreign Relations?
      • cwgannon, on 02/24/2008, -2/+3OMG. Take the ***** Reynolds Wrap off your head.
      • Hypomanic, on 02/24/2008, -2/+2I swear to God, if I hear another moron talk about who's with the CFR and who's not and why they're evil... Look the EVIL CFR are nothing more than a bureaucratic think tank with a bunch of big wigs with a pat me on the back mentality. If a bunch of random congresspeople came together and formed a glee club you people would call it a policy-making conspiracy. Just like the EVIL SPP that wants an NAU and a NAFTASH. Take your damn acronyms back to ronpaulforums.com.
    • SwordofKahless, on 02/24/2008, -10/+3George Soros and his like minded hate America ilk.
    • aaron4, on 02/24/2008, -0/+4you forgot about oprah.
    • felman87, on 02/24/2008, -3/+7most of that money comes from people, did you not see all the graphs?
      • JimmySpaza, on 02/24/2008, -1/+3Uh...ALL the money came from people. What, do you think that space aliens donated some too?

        Anyway, THAT'S not the point. Whenever a person or group of people donate $137 MILLION dollars, they are going to want something in return. Hello?!?
  • Awspire, on 02/24/2008, -17/+11Democrats and their flamboyant spending, their like teenagers with credit cards.
    • coinman987, on 02/24/2008, -2/+12Both parties both the democrats (left) and republicans (right) I repeat both parties are two wings of the same bird, both spend "like teenagers with credit cards". Only difference democrats tax and spend republicans spend and spend even more.
    • mahuebel, on 02/24/2008, -3/+5dugg, but they're
      • AndrewDB, on 02/24/2008, -6/+2No... You're wrong mahuebel.

        They're means They are.

        Their is possessive, and because its them, spending the money which they possess, it's Their.
        • aigulf, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3He was correcting the second 'their', not the first. (At least, I hope so...because the second one is the one that needs correcting.)
        • mahuebel, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2Ah I didn't even see that there was another their in there. I was referring, as aigulf suggested, at the second their.
        • michaelfitz, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1He's talking about the second, incorrect "their", retard. Chill out before you try (and fail) to correct someone on the interwebs.
    • gypsi, on 02/24/2008, -1/+8what's paying for iraq? gummi bears?
      • Synapse84, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1i'd fight for some Gummi Bears.....
      • bthug7, on 02/24/2008, -0/+4I believe we're paying with credibility, but the official stats aren't in yet.
    • phybere, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3You really should check out http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
      It's interesting to see it's the national debt decline during recent democratic presidencies, and rise during recent republic ones.
    • felman87, on 02/24/2008, -2/+7which administration ran up the debt on America nearly two-fold? I'm pretty sure it's the one that came after Clinton, but the name escapes me.
      • BeyondGoodNEvil, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1It's "Bush". Was that so hard to remember? Gosh. jk
    • cwgannon, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2Hey, man, pass the acid back over here, dude.
  • pegothejerk, on 02/24/2008, -2/+25that's a pretty big "other", Hillary.

    hmmm..
    • Neoanarchist, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1I noticed that too lol...
    • AndrewDB, on 02/24/2008, -0/+5Call it the Kleenex expenditure.
    • gypsi, on 02/24/2008, -0/+9pantsuits
    • Aleman360, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2Dunkin Donuts

      http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8619.htm ...
    • MacEnvy, on 02/24/2008, -0/+4McCain has the same kind of expenditure breakdown as Clinton. Obama and Huckabee's tracks are similar to each other. The former is indicative of running an "insider" campaign - lots of favors, stroking the egos of party leaders. The latter is what you tend to see from a personality-driven, grassroots campaign - lots of media and door-to-door, with higher administrative costs to allow for a solid volunteer hierarchy.

      /former campaign manager
      • cwgannon, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1Interesting. Which aspects of the expenditure breakdowns, in particular, if you don't mind?
    • Rocketbird, on 02/24/2008, -1/+1strippers
  • SwordofKahless, on 02/24/2008, -15/+42Ron Paul may not have a chance for the Republican nomination but he is still in the race and has raised more money that Huckabee. His message of freedom from government is likely the reason why a Socialist publication like the NY Times does not list him with the big government tax and spend candidates.
    • nittanylion06, on 02/24/2008, -13/+10"...socialist publication like the NY Times..."
      Go back in your hole
    • gypsi, on 02/24/2008, -3/+7hilarious. i guess republicans were just fine with a socialist publication like the ny times during the 90s.
      • SwordofKahless, on 02/24/2008, -5/+2Why would they be when they were far left back then also? History just keeps repeating itself and people never learn not to believe everything they read until they get a little older. You will get there some day.
        • cwgannon, on 02/24/2008, -1/+3"people never learn not to believe everything they read until they get a little older"

          Epic. I've never spent so long a time masticating on a comment and taken away so very little. Here's hoping I get there some day, though.
        • misconstrued, on 02/24/2008, -1/+2haha... the "Submit Comment" button was not your friend with this last post SwordofKahless, but the "Click to Edit" link could have been ;)
    • d03boy, on 02/24/2008, -14/+1Another comment that goes from +4 to 0 without a single comment... Obamabots unite!
      • cwgannon, on 02/24/2008, -2/+3Scroll up a bit and check the ridonculous amount of Diggs that ***** Ron Paul comments were getting. Then come back here and subtract the number of Obamabot diggs down from the number of Ron Paul delusionary diggs up. That's a standardized normally distributed Z score of your stupidity. What? Ron Paul should be in the debates!
    • Spudster, on 02/24/2008, -1/+5Funny no one complained when everyone blacklisted Alan Keyes from day one....
      • erasedgod, on 02/24/2008, -1/+2Yeah, how much did Keyes raise? I don't recall seeing any commercials.
        • Spudster, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2Considering that he wasn't even MENTIONED as a candidate from the beginning by almost every news agency is what I'm referring to. At least they list Ron Paul's totals in the results (if isn't Fox news that is...)
  • Qtip42, on 02/24/2008, -8/+66Ron Paul has more money in hand than all the republican candidates. .......and no debt to boot!
    • SheilaNoya, on 02/24/2008, -4/+9He should have spent some of that money for a few campaign ads BEFORE the primaries were held.

      Ron Paul can't legally use one dime of his presidential campaign funds to spend on his Congressional race. Since he won't be getting the GOP nomination, most of that money will be reverted back to the GOP coffers and used to help John McCain now.
      • Qtip42, on 02/24/2008, -9/+1Yes because you know exactly how the man should conduct his campaign. I totally believe you. I believe everything I read on the internet.
      • dexter411, on 02/24/2008, -3/+2"Ron Paul can't legally use one dime of his presidential campaign funds to spend on his Congressional race."

        ... Yeah, you're completely wrong there. The FEC's Code of Federal Regulations only forbid personal spending; funding another campaign is acceptable (though, for the record, he probably has only a little money left).
      • misconstrued, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2You're wrong there. It seems he is setting up a multi-candidate PAC to funnel the leftover money into and then from their send it out to support like-minded candidates running for Congressional seats. The revolution has only just begun ;)
        • nakani, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1[citation needed]
          • misconstrued, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1He said this in a recent interview. I don't remember the link.
    • cap11235, on 02/24/2008, -2/+10That's because he's not spending it on anything.
      • brokencrystal, on 02/24/2008, -1/+4I wish he had the opportunity to not spend my tax dollars as president too.
    • d03boy, on 02/24/2008, -4/+5I am pro-paul but I still like to know the truth. I question the legitimacy of this statement. Source?
  • DjViral, on 02/24/2008, -13/+65hmmm someone's missing. FUUCCKK YOOUU NYTIMES.
  • GuacamoleSan, on 02/24/2008, -0/+18I think the most powerful piece of information here is the graph showing the size of the donations....Hillary's donations were mostly $2,300+ (53%), (meaning Hillary's donations were large donations from a few wealthy friends), and Obama's donations were mostly below $500 (42%), meaning that many more people donated to Obama, probably normal people wanting to chip in, even though it was a small amount the sheer number of the donations added up..democracy in action!
    • d3mag0gu3, on 02/24/2008, -7/+1How do you equate 42% to "mostly". If you obamabots don't knock this rationalization, I will donate to the Hillary campaign. I have grown to hate obamabots and obama cause of what's happened to digg. Democracy in action? Moron, Obama has spend millions to buy votes. Did you see the chart.
      • tommythetomcat, on 02/25/2008, -1/+3It almost sounds like you didn't even bother looking at the graphs. 42% donations under $500 was his largest percentage. How is that not clear you psycho? Oh and how does Obama buy votes exactly? Does he give the donations back?
        • GuacamoleSan, on 02/25/2008, -0/+2It doesnt have to be greater than 50% to be a "majority" its called a plurality, aka the highest % of donations. Hillary buys her votes from the big Pharma companies, the military industrial complex, and other corrupt big businesses. Shame on you for supporting that.
  • amanda84, on 02/24/2008, -15/+1what if Obama and Clinton had only the money Huckabee has, would people still "worship" them, money talks. are they?
    vote Huckabee!!!!
    • gypsi, on 02/24/2008, -1/+5i can has cheezburger? are they?
    • felman87, on 02/24/2008, -1/+6What if Huckabee wasn't crazy, would people vote for him?
  • olik, on 02/24/2008, -6/+2The people in Minnesota are a bunch of deadbeats
    • spyd3rweb, on 02/24/2008, -1/+1They probably all donated to Ron Paul
      • IheartRonnyP, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2My husband and I are from MN and we donated to Ron Paul and are both delegates. Ron Paul won in our county at our caucus.
  • borez, on 02/24/2008, -3/+4Hillary to Bill:

    " Honey Bunny, remember all that money you made being president and all those after dinner speeches you gave and stuff? Well... you may need to sit down, I have something important to tell you dear"
  • sarcasticmango, on 02/24/2008, -4/+8Interesting. But why does Clinton have 20 million alloted for the general election while Obama and McCain only have 6 and 2.5 million respectively?
    • theblacknight, on 02/24/2008, -0/+4What if Hillary loses the primary? What happens to that money?
      • ezco506th, on 02/24/2008, -1/+0I think she gets to keep it.

        • d3mag0gu3, on 02/24/2008, -3/+0You think wrong obamabot. The money gets returned.
        • Zimmyzum, on 02/26/2008, -0/+0FFS, figure out a different way of insulting people.
    • mindbullets, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3why is sarcasticmango getting dugg down? i was wondering the same thing. honest question really.
    • kreneskyp, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1because she was considered a shoe-in. its why shes getting beat so badly now. she expected to have won the nomination by super tuesday.
  • mrcabnit, on 02/24/2008, -6/+2Money in tha bank!!! ...sorry
  • Qtip42, on 02/24/2008, -7/+11I took the liberty of completing the chart just to show you how retarded the media is....btw, I took the numbers from CNN...you'll have to excuse me if I'm off just a bit.
    http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/1391/mccainowne ...
    • jrm5100, on 02/24/2008, -3/+1So Ron Paul owned McCain because he spent less of the money that he raised? That makes a lot of sense.
      • cwgannon, on 02/24/2008, -0/+4My take on this:
        Ron Paul came to the conclusion that it is best to save his money for a bit later--for when he's down a few more delegates, of less interest to the media and public--and then spend it like a bat out of hell with the intent of sweeping the final two to three primaries.
        John McCain is operating is campaign a bit like a business, going cash to cash in an operating cycle. Unlike Ron Paul's stash-it-under-the-mattress-or-in-the-sofa-cushion, this gives McCain the ability to "get out the vote," keep his name in the media, and you know, win the primaries that give him the delegates he essentially needs to get the nomination.
        I'm really having a tough time, but I'm going to put my money on McCain's strategy having more long-term potential. Any thoughts?
  • zoomsixx, on 02/24/2008, -13/+43What the ***** happened to Ron Paul? I guess it's not " Digg Cool" to talk about him any more. So the in crowd like's Obama. Well ***** you too.
    • catachip, on 02/24/2008, -16/+3Ron Paul has stopped campaigning and is using all of those contributions to help save his congressional seat. Within a month John McCain will pass the finish line and become the Republican nominee. In November, Barack Obama will be nominated president, and we can get on with restoring our standing in the world (with the Dept. of Education, IRS, CIA, etc.).
      • Qtip42, on 02/24/2008, -2/+7You really believe Obama is supposed to restore the DOE and IRS? Do you know what the function of the president is? Commander in chief of the military......Not commander in chief of education, taxes, or the economy. Do you even know what you're talking about? Please educate yourself and stop thinking obama is the fixall. It's not even an obama vs. paul issue.......it's a "do you know what powers the president has" issue.....
      • SheilaNoya, on 02/24/2008, -5/+4Ron Paul isn't legally allowed to use his presidential campaign funds for his Congressional campaign. Since he won't get the GOP nomination, most of his presidential campaign funds will revert back to the GOP and they will spend the money on Jihn McCain's campaign. You can thank the Ron Paul folks for providing lots of new cash for McCain, the man they claimed to hate.
        • Akronos, on 02/24/2008, -0/+6If he ends his presidential run, he can legally use all the money for his congressional run. I'm sure Paul would not allow a cent to go to McCain.
      • Niacin, on 02/24/2008, -1/+13Except he isn't using those contributions for his Congressional election because that is AGAINST THE LAW. That's the first sign you're an ignorant twit. Furthermore, the Department of Education and CIA are two institutions that have garnered so much disgust for the United States simply by functioning as intended. Students aren't learning anything other than how to pass exams (or having their teachers fudge the scores to help the school), and the CIA is performing coups and instilling US-friendly puppet leaders in countries across the globe, pissing off the citizenry. Whom do you think created Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein?

        But the clincher is how incredibly dense you are as to the powers of a president. Until the neo-cons usurped our Constitution, the President was Commander in Chief and could veto laws passed by Congress. Outside of that his influence was purely diplomatic, be it between the various senators and representatives or to foreign nations seeking council.
      • brokencrystal, on 02/24/2008, -0/+5Ron Paul has NOT stopped campaigning. Go to his website and see for yourself. He just made another announcement promising not to drop out. http://www.ronpaul2008.com
    • shirosamurai, on 02/24/2008, -13/+3"Well ***** you too."

      Very eloquent. It's that sort of 'us versus them' mentality that got the Ron Paul camp such a bad rep around here.
    • Spudster, on 02/24/2008, -16/+4I think the people are sick of RonBots manipulating Digg for their own political gain. Goodbye crazy Libertarians! Oh yeah, and make sure the door doesn't hit you on the way out.
      • Akronos, on 02/24/2008, -2/+6Heh, crazy Libertarians. Apparently, being a government loving collectivist is normal and cool nowadays. Welcome to USSA.
      • Spudster, on 02/24/2008, -1/+2Umm yeah what you said is about right. Ask most people on the political spectrum what they believe and they agree with funding for most of the current government programs. Radical free market economics that remove basic government programs from the hands of the poor is not the political ideology of most people.
    • peestandingup, on 02/24/2008, -3/+9Same thing that happened with HD DVD. Remember that?? Couple months ago the consensus was all "***** Blu Ray & Sony, go HD DVD!" Now its the other way around. Same thing with Paul & Obama now.

      Digg users = The ultimate flip floppers
      • orca94, on 02/24/2008, -5/+1***** that, I never flip flopped. I waited until I was sure about the candidate I wanted to support, and was pretty clearly anti-paul from the start. Nice job generalizing though.
    • moletimer, on 02/24/2008, -1/+4I'm not American, but I like both Obama and Ron Paul. Am I digg-uncool now? So be it.
    • d3mag0gu3, on 02/24/2008, -3/+5A lot of these fair weather Ron Paul supporters have jumped on the Obama bandwagon. Good riddance. How can a Ron Paul supporter support Obama. Beats me. Obamabots FTW!
    • dmeyers, on 02/24/2008, -2/+4Demagogue, you need to stop. You made your account 14 days ago, and you haven't' done a single thing but attack Obama and his supporters.
      There is no way that you're 29 with the way that you're making petty characterizations and attacking anything that anyone says about the people.

      You are a forum troll, plain and simple. You never offer any information, you never offer any insight, you don't do anything but attack people all day.

      I've read through every single one of the comments you've made, and not a single one don't flame someone.

      Please, leave digg for good. Maybe then the rest of the people can go on with their discussions of "His healthcare plan is bad because..." or "Obama will bring us out of Iraq". You know, substantial arguments on both sides that actually matter. Not just attacking people who support him.

      You're the worst kind of digg user. A troll who does nothing but flame.
      Enjoy your ban, and then enjoy coming right back on another one to do the same thing because you've got nothing better to do.
    • cyrax04, on 02/25/2008, -0/+2shhhh....
      You'll let the Obamabots here you....
      Too late. We're in their territory.. :(
      *leaves to continue burying the obama and clinton spam*
  • Spudster, on 02/24/2008, -0/+14After seeing these numbers I begin to understand and resent Canadian campaign finance laws. In Canada, a candidate could never legally blow so much money on a campaign (corporate donations are BANNED). As a result, there is very little money available salary wise in politics here. On the other hand, these laws keep candidates and the overall political system free from lobbyist influence (seriously it really does)

    Campaign finance laws = Bad for party hacks/lobbyists, good for the people.
  • makenshin, on 02/24/2008, -1/+2For those who are asking, this is taking from the FEC's website (as cited as being the source for those above image) for Ron Paul and McCain.
    http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/?_08+P ... - Ron Paul
    http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/?_08+P ... - John McCain
  • Tahiri, on 02/24/2008, -4/+4All that money, could have been better spent on the needy
    • HappyProgrammer, on 02/24/2008, -0/+4You forgot to preface that with "In an ideal world". In this not so ideal world, you need to raise money to get your message heard and get some name recognition (if you were not lucky enough to already have it).

      I am supporting Obama in this race. And I support him raising that money and spending it to getting his message heard. I contributed to his campaign as well. What is the alternative? Allow war-mongers to become leaders of the country again? No, we have suffered enough! Trust me, you lose a lot more than $200million when you have a bad president.
    • tehrich, on 02/24/2008, -2/+0That's what I was thinking. If I were going to donate money it'd be to some type of charity, not to political campaigns. If you donate to a charity it generally goes directly to someone who needs it. What happens if your candidate loses? Millions wasted.
      • iamthejoker, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1Most charities don't directly distribute money to those that need it. (I give to united way) In some cases less than 10% of those donations make it through the administration that oversees them. Just Google 911 charities scams to see what I mean. In contrast, when you donate to a candidate you are directly donating to that person and trust that the money will be spent in the best possible way to create a win. That win being the one thing you can trust the candidate to pursue with all they have. Then the candidate, especially with a presidential win, can use their new power to represent your goals and interests in ways that charitable donations never could. Charities are good, a president that makes the world a better place is "gooder"
    • misconstrued, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1How much money have you donated to "the needy"?
  • thewrathoffluff, on 02/24/2008, -2/+3Millions well spent. /sarcasm
  • DragonGirl724, on 02/24/2008, -11/+7buried as inaccurate biased ***** propaganda.
  • Aleman360, on 02/24/2008, -0/+9It's very telling that 53% of Hillary's money came from donors giving the maximum. That tells us who the establishment wants.
  • yueyintaba, on 02/24/2008, -6/+1I don't want to get dugg down for sheer curiosity here, but does anyone know the figures for Ron Paul? I'm not a supporter, but after seeing so many stories make it to the front page about record fundraising, etc., I'd like to know where that money has gone. ! By the way, i'm a rich woman and recently signed up on SugarmommaMeet.com in hope to find a male sugar baby..you may want to talk with me under the name shandoris there...
  • kittyfarts, on 02/24/2008, -10/+17dugg down for lack of Ron Paul data. If you're going to do a study or any kind of comparison chart then you certainly need to include all of the information. No exclusions!
    • mntbikeracer1, on 02/24/2008, -6/+5Ok lets add in the communist party, the libertarian party and every other person running.
      • brokencrystal, on 02/24/2008, -1/+4Ron Paul is part of the Republican party fool.
      • 007brendan, on 02/25/2008, -0/+2Well, if the report is supposed to be about the top fundraisers, then it makes sense to include Ron Paul, since he outraised at least one person on the list, and has more cash on hand than all other republican candidates.
    • msqualia, on 02/24/2008, -1/+4They aren't including Mike Gravel either.
  • aussieNickuss, on 02/24/2008, -1/+1This took 2 days to be made popular! I thought I was looking at a dupe, but its the same post I saw in the upcoming section a day and a half ago.
  • PhilThePhenom, on 02/24/2008, -1/+2Wow. People REALLY don't want to see another Republican in the White House!

    That or the Democrats are pretty desperate.
  • Stephen1424, on 02/24/2008, -6/+19But Where's Paul ????
  • DigitAl56K, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1Just look at the breakdown of the "size of donations" for Clinton vs Obama, it's obvious who the peoples choice is and who is funded by big business/lobbyists/etc.
  • makenshin, on 02/24/2008, -1/+0I made an earlier comment with Paul and McCain's pages for spending, and thought instead I should post the link for the FEC search page to find all of these details for each candidate instead. I'm not gonna submit the link to Digg (dunno if it's already been done, or if someone else wants to, but i'm not going to deal with it further):

    http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/srssea.shtml
  • Acqua206, on 02/24/2008, -3/+0I'm guessing only a bunch of poor folk live in the Midwest...pretty cheap with donations in those parts.
    • msqualia, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3Do you actually not understand why states with large populations gave more than states with small populations...?
  • amishjim, on 02/24/2008, -1/+9Ron Paul says what?
  • dopke, on 02/24/2008, -0/+5... 500+ diggs for this? Just some statistics.
  • scattass, on 02/24/2008, -3/+11Obama is going to to tell them lobbyist and big business to take a hike in the government! Just look at his great contributions!
    BARACK OBAMA (D)
    Top Contributors

    Goldman Sachs $421,763
    Ubs Ag $296,670
    Lehman Brothers $250,630
    National Amusements Inc $245,843
    JP Morgan Chase & Co $243,848
    Sidley Austin LLP $226,491
    Citigroup Inc $221,578
    Exelon Corp $221,517
    Skadden, Arps Et Al $196,420
    Jones Day $181,996
    Harvard University $172,324
    Citadel Investment Group $171,798
    Time Warner $155,383
    Morgan Stanley $155,196
    Google Inc $152,802
    University of California $143,029
    Jenner & Block $136,565
    Kirkland & Ellis $134,738
    Wilmerhale Llp $119,245
    Credit Suisse Group $118,250
    • Hypomanic, on 02/24/2008, -2/+4Big businesses donate to every campaign. It buys them clout in Washington on all angles. That's America.
      • d3mag0gu3, on 02/24/2008, -1/+5Tell that to Obamabots. They think Obama ***** gold and pisses fragrant perfume.
    • jonathanhong, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2I think you gathered this information from opensecrets.org.

      http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N ...

      Under federal law if you contribute more than $200 to a campaign, you have to provide your employer information. So if numerous employees of a large organization (like University of California) contributed more $200 to Obama's campaign their INDIVIDUAL contributions would be tallied up towards the organization's total contribution (even if the organization never donated.)

      http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contribmethod.as ...

      Why (and How) We Use Donors’ Employer/Occupation Information

      The organizations listed as "Top Contributors" reached this list for one of two reasons: either they gave through a political action committee sponsored by the organization, or individuals connected with the organization contributed directly to the candidate.

      Under federal law, all contributions over $200 must be itemized and the donor’s occupation and employer must be requested and disclosed, if provided. The Center uses that employer/occupation information to identify the donor’s economic interest. (See link for further information.)
    • ezco506th, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2And, here is Hillary's

      DLA Piper $471,750
      Goldman Sachs $413,361
      Morgan Stanley $362,700
      Citigroup Inc $350,895
      Lehman Brothers $241,870
      JP Morgan Chase & Co $214,880
      EMILY's List $213,266
      National Amusements Inc $210,010
      Kirkland & Ellis $179,676
      Greenberg Traurig Llp $177,800
      Skadden, Arps et al $167,796
      Merrill Lynch $165,042
      Cablevision Systems $145,313
      Time Warner $144,977
      Microsoft Corp $143,459
      Bear Stearns $141,835
      Latham & Watkins $138,598
      Patton Boggs $137,200
      Ernst & Young $126,865
      PricewaterhouseCoopers $121,939
    • 007brendan, on 02/25/2008, -0/+2The top three for Ron Paul are the Army, Navy, and Air Force. And Google -- who I think employs the smartest people in the world right now -- is a close fourth:

      US Army $68,817
      US Navy $57,076
      US Air Force $52,371
      Google Inc $51,382
      Microsoft Corp $46,079
      US Postal Service $31,054
      Lockheed Martin $26,754
      Boeing Co $24,388
      At&T Inc $22,398
      IBM Corp $19,177
      Verizon Communications $18,399
      Hewlett-Packard $18,014
      Apple Inc $17,314
      Intel Corp $16,751
      Northrop Grumman $16,067
      General Electric $15,788
      General Dynamics $15,584
      Cisco Systems $14,702
      US Dept of Defense $14,338
      Wachovia Corp
  • CorboMan, on 02/24/2008, -2/+13Yea no ron paul numbers? Gotta love ron paul being purposely left out of the numbers, i havent seen so much propaganda in a election year then this, instead of people running off actual fact people get chuck norris and other celebrities to endorse them....like these have americas best interest in mind


    DUGG DOWN
    • mike17032, on 02/24/2008, -8/+1So nice of you to join digg just to digg this story and make this lame ass comment.

      ***** ronbot spammers.
  • scattass, on 02/24/2008, -11/+8Obama tells the lobbyist and special intrest to take a hike! Look at all these contributions from the average Americans.
    BARACK OBAMA (D)
    Top Contributors

    Goldman Sachs $421,763
    Ubs Ag $296,670
    Lehman Brothers $250,630
    National Amusements Inc $245,843
    JP Morgan Chase & Co $243,848
    Sidley Austin LLP $226,491
    Citigroup Inc $221,578
    Exelon Corp $221,517
    Skadden, Arps Et Al $196,420
    Jones Day $181,996
    Harvard University $172,324
    Citadel Investment Group $171,798
    Time Warner $155,383
    Morgan Stanley $155,196
    Google Inc $152,802
    University of California $143,029
    Jenner & Block $136,565
    Kirkland & Ellis $134,738
    Wilmerhale Llp $119,245
    Credit Suisse Group $118,250
    • Kangalanatolian, on 03/06/2008, -0/+1Thank you for supplying actual data to this forum.
  • scattass, on 02/24/2008, -2/+2***** it maybe 2 will get your cult of personlity attention YES WE CAN NOTICE BS!
  • brokencrystal, on 02/24/2008, -2/+16Buried for continued censorship of Republican candidate Ron Paul. I will not support this type of behavior.
  • thyblindedbeast, on 02/24/2008, -2/+12Can I Please have our country back!? Go RP
  • andykt, on 02/24/2008, -1/+9The Huckabee campaign was reportedly broke only a few weeks ago, with his staff working without pay. Yet, he's worthy of a mention in this run-down of what everybody's spent, but Ron Paul isn't? Fairly standard, I suppose.
  • simplicityiskey, on 02/24/2008, -2/+3Never trust someone that spends over a hundred million dollars to get a job making less than half a million a year.
  • Arcueid01, on 02/24/2008, -2/+8Yeah ***** whoever created this thing. Paul should be on this *****. He is the only one who doesn't absolutely suck. Obama who voted for Real ID, Patriot Act, Staying in Iraq. You guys are nooblettes.
    • OverlordXenu, on 02/24/2008, -2/+2Yep, the dude that believes this is a Christian nation and doesn't believe in evolution would be an _awesome_ president!
  • d3mag0gu3, on 02/24/2008, -3/+3Anyone really surprised that Obama spent 50% of his millions on media. No wonder the MSM loves him. Obama is buying this election lock, stock and barrel. The sheeple love whoever the MSM tells them to love. How are you going to explain away the big corporations donating to Obama. Obama is having an orgy with lobbyists. Hypocrite. Obamabots FTW!

    Goldman Sachs $421,763
    Ubs Ag $296,670
    Lehman Brothers $250,630
    National Amusements Inc $245,843
    JP Morgan Chase & Co $243,848
    Sidley Austin LLP $226,491
    Citigroup Inc $221,578
    Exelon Corp $221,517
    Skadden, Arps Et Al $196,420
    Jones Day $181,996
    Harvard University $172,324
    Citadel Investment Group $171,798
    Time Warner $155,383
    Morgan Stanley $155,196
    Google Inc $152,802
    University of California $143,029
    Jenner & Block $136,565
    Kirkland & Ellis $134,738
    Wilmerhale Llp $119,245
    Credit Suisse Group $118,250
  • hippomofatumas, on 02/24/2008, -1/+6um..... RON..... PAUL.....
    this kinda crap makes me mad.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 64 of 64 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.