Thursday, August 16, 2012

Top Contributors

Barack Obama

Microsoft Corp$418,845
University of California$411,386
Dla Piper$314,977
Google Inc$303,225
Harvard University$276,824

Mitt Romney

Goldman Sachs$636,080
JPMorgan Chase & Co$502,874
Morgan Stanley$476,300
Bank of America$465,850
Credit Suisse Group$421,310

Ron Paul

US Army$114,507
US Navy$89,993
US Air Force$89,009
Google Inc$42,478
US Dept of Defense$38,750
(Via Open Secrets)


  1. Replies
    1. Remember that these are not corporate donations, but cumulative contributions from employees. Thus, we can say that Google's employees are wealthier than average, more politically active than average, and split between liberal and libertarian ideologies.

      What surprises me is how unbalanced the banksters' donations are. In every election I can recall going back to the 80s, the banksters make the top of BOTH parties' candidates.

    2. My theory is that they have piled money on Romney this time to trick the people with short memory into thinking that Obama is somehow an impedence to them. Since either candidate will mean the gravy train keeps on rolling for them, they might as well spend their money preserving the left-right paradigm in as many people as they can.

  2. This challenges my assumption that the elections are fixed. Why would the moneyed interests abandon Obama in favor of Romney? Hasn't he done everything they ask?

    The only answer I can come up with is that the money to Romney is a kind of "pay off" to throw the election. By campaigning, Romney has forgone quite a large bit of money. The opportunity cost to running for President is that you can't earn money in the market. If candidates can keep the left over money after they lose, then maybe Romney plans to lose and keep the leftovers.

    It's possible, however, that Romney is actually meant to win. This doesn't make sense though. Obama has done everything he's been asked. There's no reason to dump him now. (That I can see.) Thoughts?

  3. Goldman Sachs favours Romney. Does that mean he'll win in November?

  4. I have a theory on why Sachs and Morgan are backing Romney instead of Obama this period.

    A bet on Obama this round will at most yield 4 more years of bankly servitude by the ruling cabinet.

    By backing Romney, they technically lose nothing (in that whoever they back their interests will be protected), but they have a chance to get that support for a possible 8 years rather than guaranteed 4.

  5. Never thought about it before, but, if they want to have a military coup and install Ron Paul... I'm all for it.