What is Digg?252 Comments
- larsone86, on 02/05/2008, -6/+207She couldn't have done it without all that experience.
- jkbowman, on 02/05/2008, -4/+144Another issue (a BIG one) the Hillary supporters choose to ignore.
- Gir9000, on 02/05/2008, -10/+120Obama makes you sign a statement that the money being donated is not from or any benefit to a lobbyist. I am sure the employees who donated from companies who do lobby are not aware that they do. Most companies do not advertise this info to their employees.
Obama is starting change by not accepting Lobbyist money, Speaking the truth and giving a sense of hope to a nation divided. Vote Obama, he is standing up for us! - ccfoo242, on 02/05/2008, -9/+98One thing that bugs me is the comparisons made in the article are not all apples to apples. They mention how much Obama took in from employees of lobbying firms but not how much Clinton took in the same way. Yes, she took in lobbyist money and he took none but they paint him in a bad light by mentioning the money from employees without us being able to compare the same against Clinton. Do I make sense?
- lamprey187, on 02/05/2008, -8/+80Hillary is corrupt beyond words. She will sell us all up the river if elected.
- jeyaone, on 02/05/2008, -3/+73Senator Clinton has now received more money from corporations whose business is war than any other candidate in history! Yep. More the George Bush! http://www.alternet.org/story/65869/
- aliengoods, on 02/05/2008, -3/+44Agreed. The article implies that Obama should have a list of every employee that works at a lobbying firm just so he can refuse their money. Shouldn't these employees also be able to contribute to a candidate that they believe in?
- Allegiance, on 02/05/2008, -5/+44Gee, who'd have thunk???
- reuscel, on 02/05/2008, -3/+34Wasn't McCain the guy who was all about cleaning up campaign finances so this kind of thing couldn't happen? What happened to that crusade, Mr. McCain?
- HappyProgrammer, on 02/05/2008, -0/+26Keep telling yourself that it is free money and does not come with strings attached.
Do you even know what lobbyists do? - theskyman, on 02/05/2008, -4/+28Hillary was against the labor movement when she was on the Wal-Mart board. Now she says that was a mistake and is now pro Union. Flip...Flop
Hillary voted for the War. Now she says that was a mistake. Flip...Flop!
Hillary was for Universal Health care when Bill was President. The health care lobby quickly donated BIG $$$$ to Bills re-election campaign and Hillary became silent on Universal Health care. Now Hillary is for Universal health care. Flip..Flop...Flip. - Digg413, on 02/05/2008, -6/+30No surprises here.
- ScottoGato, on 02/05/2008, -2/+23Don't make her cry! I'm waiting for the YouTube video of "Leave Hillary alone!"
- digindrivefast, on 02/05/2008, -1/+21Our "politicians" should not be paid by special interest money to do "their jobs" that we, the people sent them to do.!!!!
- rascilon, on 02/05/2008, -5/+25Anyone who doesn't know that Clinton is an establishment shill has been drinking the kool-aid.
- Epik, on 02/05/2008, -0/+18Our entire political system is run by the money.
- seks03, on 02/05/2008, -2/+19this is the reason why I moved away from the Hillary vote really early on.
- inactive, on 02/05/2008, -2/+18Nah, we just like to press that green button thingy... so cool!
- digitdean, on 02/05/2008, -6/+20Obama is.
- baalzebub, on 02/05/2008, -5/+19no worries, Hillary wont be elected president...
- PenguinWrangler, on 02/05/2008, -2/+15GO VOTE PEOPLE!!! NOW!!!
- chaosium, on 02/05/2008, -0/+11So they suddenly boost the pay during election years and rescind it afterwards? Do all of these employees give the max?
Sounds specious to me. - minoss, on 02/05/2008, -0/+11Lobbyists don't continue to give money over and over unless they are seeing a return on their investment.
- bcclist, on 06/11/2008, -3/+14disgusting as usual. not as disturbing as the tricks bill's turning in kazakhstan but still pretty disgusting.
- vibrokatana, on 02/05/2008, -0/+9You would probably take the money because your an amoral troll living in your grandmother's basement.
- dinot, on 02/05/2008, -2/+10Clinton pwned by lobbyists? Sweet!
- VotingFraud, on 02/05/2008, -1/+9actually, that IS what they do.
- beerncheese, on 02/05/2008, -1/+9Don't you mean pwned?
- inactive, on 02/05/2008, -5/+13Ron Paul wants to remove the lobby system from the American government. So, 0.
- maybeinoregon, on 02/05/2008, -2/+10I will vote for anyone except another Clinton - and lets ask ourselves is there ANYONE in politics today that knows a rats ass about what the 'American People' want? Hell the 'American People' don't even know what they want. I was excited when the idea of a new president came along - but as the Ron Pauls, the Mike Gravels, etc go by the wayside - you begin to realize it really is all just the same 'ol, same 'ol. While agree a vote for Obama may be the most change available - you have to ask yourself REGARDLESS out of the last four that are available - how much 'change' is really going to happen?
- ILikeMoney, on 02/05/2008, -5/+13This is all a bunch of *****. Don't get me wrong, I'll take Obama over Clinton and McCain any day but please stop pretending that Obama won't owe big favors. For example, one of the co-chairs of his campaign is a REGISTERED FEDERAL LOBBYIST who started a company that works for the pharmaceutical and financial service industries amongst others. It's all a front - he still takes money from state lobbyists, he still has lobbyists working for his campaign, his campaign still intentionally calls lobbyists' wives to ask for money. So he doesn't take money DIRECTLY from lobbyists and PAC's...BIG DEAL. Oh and btw, he still voted for the patriot act, all the funding for the war, and would've voted for the authorization if he was around. REAL change doesn't just come in the form of the words "hope", "change", and "Future". It's a pretty funny idea to believe that a politician doesn't compromise his integrity and principles greatly to get as far as president.
- sjl127, on 02/05/2008, -2/+10Digg slams both sides equally. Diggers are for, among other things, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The way it should be.
- SpenderH, on 02/05/2008, -4/+11Digg is for Ron Paul and Obama and is very much against Clinton.
- unclerichard, on 02/05/2008, -6/+13McCain isn't better.
- cwcentral, on 02/05/2008, -0/+6Breaking news: Congress owned by lobbyists. Duh.
having lived *in* (and not the suburbs MD,VA, as most posers do) DC for 10yrs and paid taxes w/o representation, Congress is owned by K street. One positive result is that the restaurants are A+ (snip). - Winston84, on 02/05/2008, -6/+12How much did Ron Paul take from "lobbyists"?
Seriously, I want to know and I find it strange how the main-stream US media
seem to agree not to mention.. - sindex, on 02/05/2008, -0/+6That's awfully telling right there. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
- bobbyi, on 02/05/2008, -0/+6Clinton is owned by lobbyists.
America is pwned by lobbyists.
It's a subtle distinction. - sindex, on 02/05/2008, -0/+5I'd rather have a President I trust but disagree with, than one I agree with, yet distrust.
- yodaj007, on 02/05/2008, -3/+8Give thanks to the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
- pigtown, on 02/05/2008, -0/+5The Rezko thing is *****. There are million things in the Hillary campaign that are a hundred times worse. And CNN incessantly running the clip of Hillary saying that Obama was busy "representing slum landlord" Rezko is tantamount to slander as that was proven to be outright false. Obama worked for a not for profit group that used Rezko as development company is not corrupt. Being from notoriously corrupt Chicago, if that's the most you can dig up about his time in Chicago Politics, the man is practically a saint.
- unjustend, on 02/05/2008, -0/+5I hope that the majority of America hates Lobbyists and would rather not have their politicians anywhere near them. No one likes people who take bribes, legal or not.
- Jsmuli2, on 02/05/2008, -8/+13I don't like her but not all lobbyists are that bad, there are environmentalist lobbyists and healthcare lobbyists because there are a lot of issues that politicians pretend dont exist and it takes a few thousand dollars for them to become aware .
It's sad but whatever, I just hope the next president actually SERVES the country, not just less than half of the population that agrees with everything. - digindrivefast, on 02/05/2008, -4/+9 "0"
- PrettyMuchBryce, on 02/05/2008, -0/+5Your skepticism is completely rational, but lets not forget it was Obama that introduced the bill that required politicians to make the details of their donations public in the first place.
- rumblerumble, on 02/05/2008, -0/+4http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N ...
- theutopian, on 02/05/2008, -0/+4It exists because it's allowed. The public is most certainly not cool with it. There are no rules an regulations in the constituion about it. There also isn't anything about policitcal parties in the constitution either.
- slvrbullet87, on 02/05/2008, -0/+4Watching digg users try to explain complicated ecconomics is hillarious. I know just enough about econ to know to leave it to the big boys, but the 16 year olds must teach marco econ at yale.
- BrittonBK, on 02/05/2008, -0/+4The problem is that you should not be able to buy influence, but that's what lobbyists do. They interrupt the process of making decisions on what's best for the country.
- Nth3nSum, on 02/05/2008, -2/+6Ron Paul wants to remove government from the system. So why would the corporations need lobbyists if no one has oversight?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 247 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is