The problem with HolyRoller's post is that he/she doesn't seem to objectively analyze what these numbers actually tell us. Because the more money means more employees(ordinary citizens, not CEOs or the companies themselves) contributed. So, yes Obama received more INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTIONS, McCain received more LOBBYIST contributions.
------
John McCain railed against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on the campaign trail today,
saying that the CEOs that led the lenders to ruin
"deserve nothing"
and should have to pay back their severance packages. In an
Wall Street Journal op-ed
co-bylined by his vice presidential pick, Sarah Palin, McCain suggested bold reforms
for Fannie and Freddie that would "terminate future lobbying, which was one of the
primary contributors to this great debacle."
If that's the case, McCain should look first to his campaign staffers as the cause
of that debacle. One of them was Fannie Mae's head of lobbying, and spread tens of
millions of dollars around Washington in the form of lobbying contracts. A number
of McCain staffers were on the receiving end of those contracts, collecting hundreds
of thousands of dollars each from the lenders to rep their interests. And McCain's
campaign manager served as president of a lobbying association that fought to protect
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae from the sort of regulation that McCain is now proposing.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/09/9663_mccain_fannie_freddie.html
------------
And someone from the companies who was merely employed but not lobbying is worse
than lobbyists working for those companies? McCain's belly is so full of lobbyists,
despite his bluff opposition to lobbying and claims of lobbying reform.









Discuss