SamuelRSmith said:
theprof00 said:
SamuelRSmith said:
theprof00 said:
Ahahaha show me a source for that last bit.
And do yourself a favor and look at the green companies that arent failing. |
Both parties tend to be even-split on corporate donations
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/10/13/the-10-biggest-corporate-campaign-contributors-in-u-s-politics/
If you look at the top donors to Mitt Romney, and Barack Obama, it'd be hard to tell (outside of the University donations) who's who.
Corporations just donate to anybody who's for big, centralized Government (so both parties, but Dems, historically) because it's easier to get legislation passed through one, Federal Government, than through 50 State Governments. Cutting costs on corruption!
|
You should research your own sources more. Never heard of superpacs?
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php
fyi, pacs and superpacs usually post negative ad campaigns against people they don't want to win, in this way, they are able to shield their "donations" to some specific candidate, because their contribution to the campaign is not technically a donation.
|
Super-PACS are new, why would any be set up for Democrats? They haven't had a primary (worth talking about) this year. All of those pro-Conservative super-PACs have been fighting other Conservatives. Let's see what happens come next election, when both Republicans and Democrats are running real primaries. There'll be massive super-PACS both sides of the aisle.
|
Oh ho ho. but you're avoiding the issue.
You're saying that Obama has received more this campaign than Romney, yet failed to account for the many many millions super pacs have serviced him.
At this very point in time, your original point was wrong.
What you say is true though, when the two go head to head, there will be super pacs. I don't disagree. However, you are still missing the bigger picture that the graph you provided is only a tenth of the story.
