Tag Archives: US

Followup On Money

Next week I will move beyond the US elections, but so long as the big media does such a poor job of looking behind the show, I feel the need to bring forward whatever information I feel is of importance.

Some months back my internet colleague Chris Weagel recommended a media source to me, by the name of consortium news.  I’ve subscribed to that site, and have indeed found useful information that is not available in the mainstream.

The latest eye-opening article went over Hillary Clinton’s income, on the heels of her 5 million dollar loan to her own campaign.  Some people may not be surprised or remotely uncomfortable about the numbers, but I want to lay it out anyway.

According to author and journalist Nat Parry, Hillary’s income breaks down like this:

  • Senate salary of $169,300 a year.
  • From her memoir Living History, 9.9 million$
  • $10.2 million for giving 57 speeches in 2006

And then there is husband Bill’s money coming from such places as:

  • $20 million via business relationship with Yucaipa Cos., the investment firm of his longtime supporter, billionaire Ron Burkle, which has connections to the ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum.  – according to the Wall St. Journal
  • Helped Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra in securing a lucrative uranium deal with the repressive government of Kazakhstan in 2005, shortly before Giustra made an unreported $31.3 million donation to Clinton’s foundation. – according to the New York Times.

This is just a taste, read the full post for details as well as links to the sources.

Seeing these numbers just makes me do a double-take, as sometimes I forget how very wealthy politicans in the United States can be; especially if they’ve lived in the white house.

bm248 Campaign Staff With a Dark Past

Virtually every candidate who was running or is still running in the US presidential election uses the word change over and over again. Some are more believable then others. While recently I’ve been trying to sort out where the money is coming from, in this podcast I look at who is on staff on the democratic side. Since both Clinton and Obama are seen as the most exciting candidates who promise change, I’m asking who are the people that shape their policies?

Campaign staff can very easily become White House Staff if the race is won, especially those individuals with the label of “advisor”.  In this podcast I talk about the advisors on staff, and those with a questionable past. While both candidates have some staff members with impressive and admirable records, there are also those with questionable connections and blood on their hands.

Useful sources I recommend for doing your own research:

  • OpenSecrets – As previously mentioned for money and elections
  • Muckety – Interesting Way to Map Connections

Articles Mentioned in this podcast:

Other Names I go into:

  • William Perry – Clinton Advisor
  • William Daley – Obama Advisor
  • Howard Wolfson – Clinton Advisor
  • Mike Henry – Clinton Deputy Campaign Manager
  • Patti Doyle – Clinton Campaign Manager
  • Robert Malley – Obama Middle East Advisor (alleged)

Response to the Money

D-Rock knows campaign finances… and he shows some of that in yesterday’s comments.  In response to my bought and sold numbers which I admittedly threw together coursely, he had the following to say, which I thought is worthy of highlighting in its own post (extra attention to the last part where he talks about what happens to all that money Giuliani got) :

Well, that’s not quite the whole story

The numbers you reference are from total individual contributors in each sector. When you see “Goldman Sachs” $407,000 that’s what individual employees of the company choose to give to a candidate, and there are limits to what each individual can give. I believe that number is $5,000 per candidate.

A cooperation or union can not give money to a candidate from their funds so you’re bought and sold for line is a little misleading. Corporations and unions can give money directly to candidates through a Political Action Committee – though Obama hasn’t taken any money from PACs. 99% of Obama’s money came from individual contributors 25% of which are under $200.

So when there’s a title that says “insurance and real estate x millions of dollars” that means the millions of people that gave money to candidates marked “insurance and real estate” as their profession on the FEC form. That does not mean that the “insurance and real estate” CEO in his “insurance and real estate” company headquarters just wrote a check for x millions of dollars to a candidate.

Later on he added:

The US fed budget is 3 trillion a year, so a few hundred million ever four years to have some access to that seems like a reasonable investment.

Is there too much money in politics? Sure…I guess, maybe not enough of our money.

Case in point – If Nader had his way and had everyone that made minimum wage give his campaign $10 he would be the most powerful political figure in the US. Would we say there is too much money in politics if that was the case?

The two best things to curtail some of the spending is to lower maximum contributions and increased transparency. I’m not sure where EU parties get their income (prob public funding) but the FEC transparency of political contributions is outstanding. You can search by name, zip code, industry etc. Your link to opensecrets.org says it best.

Questions like can the government prohibit you from spending your own money on a political race? See Corzine

Or, what if you raise millions and out spend your opponent 100:1 but your contributions can from small donors?

The biggest problem right now is the double dipping by contributors to increasing amount of PACs and Leadership PACs – that’s a long story.

Oh man I loved watching Rudy 9u11iani fail like a fat kid doing pull ups in gym class. He actually set the record of the WORST campaign ever recorded he spent something like 50 million and got 1 delegate. His left over money can be given away to other campaigns or the national party. But I think he spent everything he had

Money Trail

You might be inspired by this year’s US presidential election, so forgive me for disturbing the good vibes. Like all elections in the US, this one has already been bought and paid for…

 Goldman Sachs 

Hillary Clinton: 407,000$ +

Barak Obama: 421,000$ +

Mitt Romney: 223,000$ +

Citigroup 

Hillary Clinton: 350,000$ +

John McCain: 153,000$ +

Morgan Stanley

Hillary Clinton: 362,000$+

Mitt Romney: 152,000$+

Securities and Investment

Hillary Clinton: 5,828,000$+

Barak Obama: 5,295,000$+

Mitt Romney: 4,141,000$+

Insurance and Real Estate

Hillary Clinton: 15,131,000$+

Mitt Romney: 11,686,000$+

Barak Obama: 11,591,000$+

Law Firms/Lawyers

Hillary Clinton: 11.756,000$+

Barak Obama: 9,521,000$+

John McCain: 2,508,000$+

Energy and Natural Resources

Mitt Romney: 731,262$+

Hillary Clinton: 704,000$+

Barak Obama: 619,000$+

Follow the money trail yourself…

bm247 Holding the Army Corps Accountable

A recent court ruling may have dropped the case against the army corps of engineers, but it also pointed to them as responsible for the terrible state of the levees in New Orleans before the Federal Flood. Sandy Rosenthal, founder of levees.org joins me on this program to explain what is happening with the legislative and legal battles being fought in the quest for justice and accountability in NOLA.

The controversial video we discuss can be viewed here.

We Discuss:

  • The Jan. 31st ruling to drop the case against the corps.
  • The 8/29 Investigation Act
  • What has been rebuilt?
  • The Army Corps’ investigation of itself
  • The current presidential candidates and what they say about NOLA

 

note: I had a big technical problem in the recording and that is why Sandy’s audio is so distorted. Still, I fixed what I could and on most sound systems, it should be audible.

Antarctic Research

I’ve been collecting articles about the antarctic, for future use in podcasts relating to what is happening there.  While my interest is in the nations with competing claims over pieces of the antarctic, I’m also interested in how global warming is speeding up the ice melting there and what happens as a result.

One story I read today, was about the animal known as “pink gold” or “krill”, which is abundant in Antarctica.  According to the article, Krill are:

small shrimp-like crustaceans which with modern technology can be used in fish feed, human dietary supplements, soya sauce flavoring, pharmaceuticals, or even to clean the paintings of Old Masters .

The list of uses and benefits of Krill go on and on, and well worth reading. But there is also a great danger that they are being overfished, which brings a whole other list of problems for the antarctic ecosystem.

Another issue is invasive species.  Wherever you live you certainly come into contact with some type of invasive species; plant or animal life that is not native to your area but was introduced somehow and becomes overwhelming to all others and in turn damages the ecosystem.

In the case of Antarctica, scientists and tourists have apparently unknowingly caused invasive species to appear there.  Even the smallest of  moss or mold, or even rats coming off visiting ships, are a huge risk to Antarctica which is known for never having experienced any type of major invasive species.

The learning continues… related podcast coming soon.