digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!

See the original image at huffingtonpost.com —

McCain's Lobbyists Raked In $1 Billion From U.S. Clients

huffingtonpost.com — According to an analysis performed by the group, McCain's top fundraisers and aides have collected nearly $1 billion in fees from U.S. companies in the past decade -- specifically, $930,949,819. Using numbers provided by the Center for Responsive Politics, the group also found that those very same companies have given nearly $12 million to McCain.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • thejoshuablog, on 08/13/2008, -13/+33Worse than Bush/Cheney.
    • HumanGlitch, on 08/13/2008, -19/+2You mother likes men.
    • scoottie, on 08/13/2008, -5/+6to bad pelosi isnt running for prez

      http://digg.com/environment/Hot_air_and_gas_from_t ...
    • jabberwolf, on 08/13/2008, -3/+2And this is over 10 years?

      So anyone who did work in the private sector, made 1 billion over 10 years?
      And top "fundraisers" which means what?
      Any company that supported him?

      "According to an analysis performed by the group". Typical Huffington source - there is none!

      Huffington crap as usual.
      Ya might as well say aliens in flying saucers gave him lobby money - "revealed an inside aide".
    • jabberwolf, on 08/13/2008, -2/+1Not to mention-
      Actual number contradicts this article with a REAL source:
      http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sectorall.php?cy ...

      "NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 2008 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released electronically on Monday, July 28, 2008. "
      • CryRightardCry, on 08/14/2008, -1/+1What a sad ***** warmongering coward you are.
        If you bothered to read the article, you'd have seen the link WAS to opensecrets.com. Thanks for highlighting the fact that you didn't read it.
        Just because you are too dumb to figure out how to get the same data out of the site just means you can't figure it out.
        Or did you somehow think showing random charts made a difference to your claim that it's wrong?
        Are you so dumb you can't even figure out what charts support your claims?
        Oh, that's right. Rightards just use random data and keep shouting their claims until someone believes it.
        When are you going to enlist, you cowardly warmongering piece of *****?
        If you are too ***** to enlist, at least learn how to find links that support your idiocy.
  • jjc4good, on 08/13/2008, -13/+39Another pro-rich, pro-special interest republican for the plutocracy we call home. Disgusting.
    BUT WAIT! The other guy doesn't look like you, so McCain must be your man!
    Come on America. Wake up. Smell the *****. Get these bums and their friends out of Washington.
  • AtHomeBoy2000, on 08/13/2008, -13/+43$1 billion is STAGGERING. Remember, John McCain SAYS he's against lobbyists. but his ACTIONS say otherwise.
    • MacEnvy, on 08/13/2008, -5/+6Especially considering he was banging one for a while ...

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/20/john-mcca ...
      • obamayomama, on 08/13/2008, -5/+3Anyone citing the Huffington Post as a credible source should be taken out and maimed.
      • PolishLogic, on 08/13/2008, -4/+1zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
      • MacEnvy, on 08/14/2008, -2/+2And yet neither of you has an actual rebuttal ... not surprising.
      • obamayomama, on 08/14/2008, -2/+3That's because it's such a non-story that it doesn't require a rebuttal. The NY Times ran with it with no evidence, meanwhile they ignored the hard evidence (pardon the pun) on the slimeball John Edwards. The only people who think they have anything here are a few left-wing loons like yourself.
      • CryRightardCry, on 08/14/2008, -4/+1@macenvy
        The rightards have GIVEN UP on any sort of rebuttals, they have been reduced to whining about huffpost.
        Cowardly ***** like Polishlogic are too ***** to enlist, and not smart enough to debate, so all they can do is spew ***** and idiocy on digg.
        If they had any facts to back their claims up, they post the links.
        Typical rightard failures.
        Pity their families.
      • PolishLogic, on 08/14/2008, -1/+5"And yet neither of you has an actual rebuttal ... not surprising."

        Yes, because it's of the utmost importance to give you a rebuttal to a story that has yet to be proven true, and has subsequently been dropped like a hot rock by the news organization that originally ran it.


        Jesus, you're an idiot. Go back to crying for Cindy McCain's tax returns or some other equally mundane topic.
      • DreadPirate, on 08/14/2008, -1/+4CRC - You complain about rebuttals, when you lack the balls to respond to people who rebut your pathetic whiny rants. I think your complaints about cowardice are just an inflated case of projection, since you have never had the courage to respond to anyone who points out your errors.

        Try whining someplace else, where you won't be called on your hypocrisy and cowardice.
      • PolishLogic, on 08/14/2008, -1/+2Ugh, CRC.....

        Again with this whole enlistment thing. Does everything in your life revolve around enlistment? Judging by your comments, it sure seems to.

        It's odd to think that you feel everyone but you should join the military. Then you call other people cowards.

        ***** strange.
    • jabberwolf, on 08/13/2008, -5/+2Can we just admit here and now that you tards will say anything with no source?!?!?!!

      • CryRightardCry, on 08/14/2008, -4/+1Source is in article *****.
        Just Time and Newsweek and the New York Times and the AP.
        You pathetic *****.
        Do you get a thrill out of pretending to be stupid and not getting it?
        You are like some teenage bimbo, pretending to be stupid to get boys.
      • obamayomama, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1CRC is like a festering boil that no one likes but won't go away. Everything he spews is nonsense. Ignore him.
  • Arishia, on 08/13/2008, -10/+18omfg :-o
  • AtHomeBoy2000, on 08/13/2008, -10/+35This is the same John McCain who once said "too often the special interest lobbyists with the fattest wallets and best access carry the day when issues of public policy are being decided."
  • barbiesnow, on 08/13/2008, -7/+24So much for the McCain-Feingold Bill..
  • treehugger87, on 08/13/2008, -9/+29This certainly explains how a "Maverick" like John McCain could become such a flip flopper:

    Ethanol: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15637887/
    Tax cuts: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6731 ...
    Offshore Drilling: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/17/mccain-flip-fl ...

  • soot, on 08/13/2008, -22/+13in b4 "huffingtonpost post is spam because i can't actually refute this study's findings"
  • zacharytelschow, on 08/13/2008, -20/+26McCain takes public financing while Obama, despite his word that he would take public financing if his opponent does, passed and McCain is the candidate of big money? Obama raised in one year 1/3 of what McCain fundraisers and aides have raised in a DECADE and McCain is the candidate of special interests? Do you idiots have some sort of debilitating deficiency or are you intentionally dense?
    • jakereilly, on 08/13/2008, -15/+16Please prove that all the money obama raised in one year is from "special interests" and is comparable to the dirty money of mccain and your argument is valid.

      If not, your argument is null and void and you have no idea what you are talking about.

      buried for stupidity.
      • scoottie, on 08/13/2008, -8/+12"buried for stupidity." couldnt have summarized your reply any better
    • soot, on 08/13/2008, -11/+10You do realize they chose to forego the $80 million in public funds because they are raising record amounts of money from small online donors and are no longer accepting PAC or registered lobbyist donations unlike John McCain and the RNC, right?
      • DaDrake, on 08/13/2008, -10/+7Obama forgo it because it benefited them. Obama made a pledge, which he used against Cliton to secure the democratic nomination. Then, he decided to flip so he had a better chance of winning the white house. Don't make it sound like Obama made some noble choice... he didn't; his choice was filled with self-interest just like every DC politician.

        Secondly, while both candidates have accepted private money before the general election... John McCain won't be able to accept any money from businesses from now on.
      • soot, on 08/13/2008, -0/+3"John McCain won't be able to accept any money from businesses from now on."

        That doesn't matter because the RNC is and will continue to for him.
    • thekitchen, on 08/13/2008, -5/+3jakereilly - "Please prove that all the money obama raised in one year is from "special interests" and is comparable to the dirty money of mccain and your argument is valid. "

      Why doesn't Huffington provide that information? Let them do some research on the amount of $$ Obama is receiving from the AFT for his help in stopping their competition, which is school vouchers? Or lets find out how much he's receiving from the abortion racket for keeping those 1 million plus abortions on track every year - including his full support for partial birth abortion?

      Obama 08
      Hope. Change… and kool-aid provided!!!
    • mvlazysusan, on 08/13/2008, -3/+2you still are able to

      WRITE IN RON PAUL

      because that's who I want to be the president!
      If you vote fore someone who you know will try to take away are guns like Obama????
      If you vote fore someone who you know will draft then KILL you're children??????
      If you vote fore someone who you know will stop capital gains tax on gold and silver??????
  • TinternAbbot, on 08/13/2008, -15/+17The Democrats receive more donations from the wealthy, yet we call the Republicans the party of the rich elite? Come on.
    • byronm, on 08/13/2008, -6/+3The Republicans are "Wannabe" rich & elite. Democrats know it takes money to make money, republicans know to take money to make money.
    • Thuktun, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1@TinternAbbot

      Cite?
  • ftx437, on 08/13/2008, -16/+14So where is the report on Obamamamamama?
  • snowbooch, on 08/13/2008, -10/+15in other news: obama/mccain both politicians, doing politician things (like above), and 99% similar despite the passionate argument about the rest
  • shortkid422, on 08/13/2008, -12/+11So that's what he meant by finding a billion dollars tomorrow.
  • katanauser, on 08/13/2008, -21/+19Gee more HUFFPO-TARD reporting! Gee a whole BILLION dollars! Why 20 or 30 billion more and he might equal George Soros' influence on the DIM-O-Crats and the HUFFPO-TARDS.

    Rave on twits! Dugg!
    • justinx0r, on 08/14/2008, -0/+2I know, right? If there was a foreign billionaire like George Soros spending obscene amounts of money trying to defeat Obama liberals would be going insane. But since he's against McCain it's no big deal to them.
  • scoottie, on 08/13/2008, -14/+1wow...
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/us/politics/06bu ...
  • garryw, on 08/13/2008, -15/+1Romney 2012. Until then be prepared for 4 years of horsepucky.
  • MrMystery317, on 08/13/2008, -11/+19Here are the facts. Visit http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sectorall.php?cy ...

    As you can see, Obama and the democrats have raised $278,073,935 from BIG BUSINESS while McCain has only received $181,137,193 from those industries. Yet another example of the democratic press and its ability to twist information for its own agenda.

    • ldw4686, on 08/13/2008, -11/+11your point makes no sense. the numbers you have look like it is for all democrats and republicans. after looking at that website, it shows each candidate and then breaks down where the donations come from. and if you look at obama, you will find that he doesn't have any contributions from oil/gas companies, while McCain does. and also shows that McCain has taken money from lobbyists, while Obama hasn't. so, thanks for confirming how the media has twisted the facts when you just proved their argument.
      just in case:
      Obama's contributions
      http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.php?cycle= ...

      McCain's contributions
      http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.php?cycle= ...

      might want to look where you are jumping next time.
      • vexingmodstwo, on 08/13/2008, -6/+9Obama hasn't taken money from lobbyists? Are you high?
      • ldw4686, on 08/13/2008, -8/+3according to this website... no, it didn't show the amount that has been recorded by the Federal Election commission. so, no I am not high. But thanks for the witty repertoire
      • mmmmmbiscuits, on 08/13/2008, -2/+7"But thanks for the witty repertoire"

        I assume you meant "witty repartee" but you just never know with drooling young Obamabots...
      • ldw4686, on 08/13/2008, -1/+2touche!

      • CryRightardCry, on 08/14/2008, -1/+1LOL
        The rightards are burying you for pointing out the correct data!
        These cowardly scumbags just crack me up.
        Notice they can only argue with the WRONG data, and by BURYING you.
      • MrMystery317, on 08/15/2008, -0/+0Right in the link you posted it says under Obama:
        "Lawyers and LOBBYISTS: $20,924,958
        McCain same category: $7,683,780
        Wow sure looks like Obama doesn't take funding from Lobbyists and McCain takes Millions.
        Also John McCain accepted not even $2M from Oil & Gas. Wow what a crime he committed!
  • vexingmodstwo, on 08/13/2008, -16/+19After careful consideration of the article and the comments... I'm still voting for McCain.
    • byronm, on 08/13/2008, -9/+3I love it when people admit how retarded they are in public!
    • CryRightardCry, on 08/14/2008, -1/+1So a ***** never learns, is the lesson you are teaching?
      Cowards never learn?
      I'm having a hard time nailing it down.
      A pathetic scumbag never learns?
      A traitorous cowardly warmonger never learns?
      Nah, it's too hard to nail down.
  • johndavidjack, on 08/13/2008, -10/+20Thanks to this breaking info, I finally realized politicians receive money from people who take interest in issues that effect them...

    There needs to be more options in the burying menu, like buried as "HuffPo/DailyKOS/thinkprogress spam".
    • LordPhantom, on 08/13/2008, -3/+12I was going to say much the same thing; It's not news that people work, earn money, and give a slice of it to politicians they support, thats the American system!
  • kencurran, on 08/13/2008, -11/+4McCain seemed cool in 2000 and I actually donated to him.. so did my grandmother actually. I just wish he didn't turn into what he is today. Obama gave me the will to switch parties.
  • dungar, on 08/13/2008, -15/+8MCAIN ROCKS! WOOHOO!
  • LukasSmith, on 08/13/2008, -12/+174 Points
    Huffington Post
    Opinion Piece
    2 paragraphs long
    1 billion would massively eclipse anything Obama has. McCain should basically be able to buy the Media. Obama has been the only one able to do that so far. So I bury this article.

    P.S. I am still voting for John McCain
    • CryRightardCry, on 08/14/2008, -2/+1P.S. We don't expect cowardly ***** rightards like you to have a clue, so we EXPECT you to vote for the greatest chance of failure.
  • chall2001, on 08/13/2008, -4/+18Why did they list the money thats been taken in over a decade?
    Is there a comparison of the money taken in by all people with any connection to Obama over this period of time? I'd like to see these numbers compared and not just manipulated for political hate speech.
    • scoottie, on 08/13/2008, -2/+9well that will be possible when Obama is a public servant for more than a decade. he's been a congressman for what like 5 years now?
    • vexingmodstwo, on 08/13/2008, -4/+11They had to go back a decade because the numbers wouldn't have been high enough.

      The game is to make it look like McCain gets more than Obama. Clearly, they've got nothing.
      • CryRightardCry, on 08/14/2008, -2/+1This is a great example of why the rightards are failing so badly.
        This pathetic jackass has NO ethical or moral understanding of the situation.
        To him there is NO integrity issue with taking money for influence.
        This lack of integrity and ethics has been illustrated during the Bush disaster, and even now they STILL haven't learned that supporting scumbags leaves you with a scumbag nation.
        I think they WANT a nation of scumbags and honorless assholes because they'll feel right at home.
      • PolishLogic, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1@CryRightardCry

        If we wanted a nation of scumbags, we'd try to get you and your friends and family into political office, pronto.

        Your mother should have been pushed down a long flight of stairs around month 4 of her pregnancy with you.
  • tflowholdings, on 08/13/2008, -11/+1Don't hate on a playa! He's makin dat scrilla , what are you doing? Even Obama is 'aiite' with it.
    • scoottie, on 08/13/2008, -4/+3lol after reading your comment i looked at the pic for this post and couldnt stop laughing
    • tflowholdings, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1why is everyone digging me down
  • obamayomama, on 08/13/2008, -6/+14Another slanted HuffPost piece...what a surprise. Lobbyists get a bad name, and it's true that some of them are slimy, but check this out:

    "Obama has pledged not to take money from lobbyists, but even within that promise there are loopholes. His campaign says it steers clear of registered federal lobbyists, but it does take money from lobbyists at state and local levels.... Additionally, a candidate can completely avoid lobbyists and rake in millions from so-called bundlers, deep-pocket contributors who work to get others to fork over the maximum individual contribution. Sheila Krumholz, executive director for the Center for Responsive Politics, says the organization has been working to find out more about bundlers such as how much they have raised and where they work, so they can better identify the source of the money. "We know that Barack Obama has raised at least $52.2 million from bundlers, or about 18 percent of his overall receipts," Krumholz said." - Associated Press 7/29/08

    So save the "high and mighties," Obama supporters. Kthanks.
  • xman8, on 08/13/2008, -2/+9"An analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics found Barack Obama has received more money from Exxon’s employees, including top executives, than John McCain. And the company isn’t the only energy behemoth to favor the presumptive Democratic nominee: Chevron and BP executives and workers have also sent more money to the Illinois senator than to his fall rival."

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/08/do ...
    • byronm, on 08/13/2008, -4/+2oh.. so now you're not allowed to contribute if you work somewhere? hahaha.. yer funny
      • obamayomama, on 08/13/2008, -1/+2hahahah no one said that. hahahahah
  • jabberwolf, on 08/13/2008, -3/+31 BILLION
    over last 10 years...
    from "CLIENTS"!

    So anyone that Mccain talked to, did business with, breathed on... would be a client... and those he dealt with made money...
    Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......

    Yep more Huffington as usual !
  • runCMD, on 08/13/2008, -1/+3You know what would impress me ? If you came up with something true, good, and appropriate to the conversation about your own candidate than something bad about the other.
  • HasturGA, on 08/13/2008, -1/+1I would have hoped folks would have figured it out by now but this is Digg after all so we should expect some folks to be slow...

    Using big words like "DIM-O-Crats", "HUFFPO-TARDS", "Repuglicans", "Obamabots", "McCunt" and so on doesn't make you look smart. Quite frankly, and it doesn't matter which side you're bashing, it just makes you look like you're too stupid to make your point without making up new words just like George W. does.

    I plan on voting for Obama this November but that doesn't make me an "Obamabot". I don't agree with everything he has put forward... I just agree with more of it than I do of what McCain has said and done. I'm sure there are people who intend on voting for McCain who feel the same way. No slavish devotion to his every word, just that they agree with more of what he says than his rival. My point here for those that haven't caught on is just because on a single issue one candidate or another looks bad (or good for that matter) and someone points it out, it doesn't describe the political leanings of the person pointing it out... just how they feel about that one issue.

    So don't assume that since this post is about something that doesn't look favorable for McCain that someone who speaks here about it automatically must worship Obama and the ground he walks on. In all likelihood, they're just saying that this looks bad for McCain. It's just as much up to us to "cross the aisle" and hear what other people are saying as it is up to the politicians we elect to office. That means actually listening now and then because it's quite possible that your guy did do something you wouldn't agree with if you stopped and evaluated it... or that the other guy in that party you don't like did something that makes sense to you.
    • obamayomama, on 08/13/2008, -1/+1Thanks for the advice. You seem like a reasonable person, so I'd like to invite you to take your own advice and really examine this article and the unfair nature of the way it portrays Senator McCain. As a reasonable person, I'm sure you'd agree that it would be even more unfair if one of the candidates were to suggest that the other is beholden to lobbyists, even in a campaign ad, all the while knowing that he himself had lobbyists on his staff, and that he was taking lobbyists' money too. I wonder if it would be a surprise to you to learn that Senator Obama had been doing just that. I know, i know... I couldn't believe it either but it's true. Oh, and here's some evidence that proves it.

      "Obama has pledged not to take money from lobbyists, but even within that promise there are loopholes. His campaign says it steers clear of registered federal lobbyists, but it does take money from lobbyists at state and local levels.... Additionally, a candidate can completely avoid lobbyists and rake in millions from so-called bundlers, deep-pocket contributors who work to get others to fork over the maximum individual contribution. Sheila Krumholz, executive director for the Center for Responsive Politics, says the organization has been working to find out more about bundlers such as how much they have raised and where they work, so they can better identify the source of the money. "We know that Barack Obama has raised at least $52.2 million from bundlers, or about 18 percent of his overall receipts," Krumholz said." - Associated Press 7/29/08

      By the way, when you get a chance, would you mind taking a look Senator Obama and his record? If you do that, and do that with an open mind, I'm quite sure that, as a reasonable person, you'll find that Senator Obama's message of "hope" and "change" really doesn't mesh with his party-line voting, radical associations and "politics as usual" past.

      Have a great day, and thanks so much. ;-)
  • theboyjlowe, on 08/13/2008, -5/+1the biggest travesty is that we are ignoring the bigger threat!!!! Mr. Obama

    my blog http://www.whybarackisajoke.blogspot.com
  • PolishLogic, on 08/13/2008, -1/+2Sounds like lobbyists have taken a cue from unions.
  • godseyeview, on 08/13/2008, -4/+2BIG MONEY!!! BIG PRIZES!!!! FASCIST GOVERNMENT!!!! I LUV IT!!!!
  • brightlight4, on 08/14/2008, -2/+2So THAT is why McCain has such a broad beam on his face!!!
  • hnsez, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1***** Senile Old Money Bags Elitist McCunt 500 Dollar Shoe Wearing Tax Cutter For the Rich McSame
  • obamayomama, on 08/14/2008, -0/+0hnsez, I notice you posted that same ridiculous ***** over and over again on DIgg. Are you a Democratic party operative, or are you just that ***** stupid?
  • richirwin, on 08/14/2008, -0/+2Are these the 130 lobbyists on McCain's staff (after McCain said that he wouldn't have any lobbyists on his staff)?
  •  

    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.