Help me out, Obama and money from Freddie Mac

[cags]

I need to know what the deal is with that. Got a leaner who I need to convince about this one.

I don't really know anything about it, so what exactly did Obama get money for if he got money at all?

Any help is appreciated

[TxRider]

1. From what I understand..

He is the #2 or #3 recipient in campaign funds from Freddie/Fannie but I think that includes all employees small donations.. I'm not real clear on the distribution of it.

Fanny/Freddie gave out over a million in contributions, even McCain is showing some, but only about 25,000.

I believe factcheck and others have charts on it.

[Median Democrat]

3. However, that does not include Board of Directors...

Which if included, gives McCain six figures in contributions according to NY Times.

In other words, Obama gets contributions from employees, while McCain gets contributions from the rich folks sitting on the Boards.

[karynnj]

23. Here is a chart from opensecrets.org

This web site is the basis for the statements. Look closely though, Open Secrets splits the contributions into individuals and PAC. Obama and Kerry are high on INDIVIDUAL contributions. I am not sure what the small PAC contributions were as neither took them - so I suspect it was the conventions, but at any rate they are very small. Note the big PAC recipients - Republicans, many on the Banking committee.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html

[MarjorieG]

2. Again, memory, maybe 16K for Obama and 160K for McCain. More important is Rick Davis, lobbyist.

Fannie Mac says McC disingenuous, with camapign looking like lobbyists who reported to them.

[EC]

4. Employees

small amounts...

[vaberella]

5. He recieved, $105,849 in donations from FMx2.

However, they were donations from employees not from the Corporations themselves.

http://pfds.opensecrets.org/092408.html

This could be incorrect or a Rovian trick, but I don't know.

[emilyg]

6. From google

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
525,000 dollars

BARACK OBAMA: $525,000 of contributions from bankrupt Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and Lehman Brothers. Barack Obama has received more money from this bankrupt and corrupt organization than any other member of Congress. In his very short time as a lawyer, Obama represented clients seeking to force Lenders to provide high-risk, subprime mortgage loans which are now at the center of our nation's major crisis.

FRANKLIN RAINES (Obama Top Advisor): former CEO of bankrupt Fannie Mae who was fired for “accounting irregularities” and was given a $90 million Golden Parachute.

JIM JOHNSON (Obama Top Advisor who chose Joe Biden as V.P.): former CEO of bankrupt Fannie Mae and CEO of bankrupt Lehman Brothers.

PENNY PRITZKER (Obama National Finance Chair): former Chair of bankrupt subprime lender, Superior Bank of Chicago. Paid $450 Million in fines to avoid potential criminal prosecution
6 days ago

[Emit]

7. Got any links to prove that figure and those claims?

[elkston]

8. From google? Not exactly a neutral, independent source.

Besides, you're a confirmed Obama hater, so the information is suspect.

[elkston]

9. Froget this poster. He/She is still not over the Primaries. (eom)

[Baltoman991]

12. Wow

you really pulled this one out of the air didn't you?

You do realize that the McCain talking point of Raines being a top advisor, or any advisor at all to Obama has been debunked right?

As far as your totals there, well, not your totals but whatever website the google search led you to, lets just say that they're off by oh, a lot.

But I've been reading here long enough to know that you're really not a supporter of Obama so I can understand why you'd find the most flaming numbers you could find and not actually link to the website itself.

[Emit]

13. You still have time to edit your post and get rid of that false information

if you are so inclined, or, at least try to offer links to back it up.

[Essene]

16. Some truth. On the flip side... Mccain's campaign manager, Rick Davis...

His lobbying firm was getting paid $15,000 a month by Fannie Mac up until last month.


GOP deflectors say he wasnt getting a salary or dividends, but Rick Davis is still one of the 2 executives at the firm and still an owner. It's not only a sleezy association, lobbying for these people, but it represents a conflict of interest that Mccain was UNAWARE of...

edit: this is according to newsweek.

[cags]

17. Hmmm...This is kinda suspicous, since some of that info has been proven false already

[Ganja Ninja]

18. We're still waiting for you to back up your figures with a link. n/t

[Peacetrain]

21. Franklin Raines was a top Obama advisor???

are you sure about that ??? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[cags]

15. Now that link doesn't include John McCain at all... I don't get it

[karynnj]

24. Another report disaggregates PAC and individual

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html

[Emit]

10. Fannie and Freddie and McCain and Obama

From a link to NYT found here: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/top-senate-recipients-of-fanni.html

[joop]

11. 10Q for the clear table link. nt.

[cags]

14. Thanks, thats what I was looking for, is that missing employee contributions though?

[Bucky]

19. That chart proves one thing: H. Patrick Swygert is a whore.

I can respect anyone who gets involved politically, even if I disagree with them on all the issues. But Swygert is just trying to buy access.

[TexasObserver]

25. Here's our winner!!

And don't believe that specious bullshit one of our PUMAs crapped onto the thread. She never tires of spreading anti Obama lies.

[Essene]

20. re: Mccain's campaign manager, rick davis

http://www.newsweek.com/id/160713?from=rss

1. Mccain runs ad slamming Obama for ties to Fannie Mac

2. SUNDAY: Mccain said he had NO ties to Fannie Mac (60 Minutes)

3. TUESDAY: Newsweek and NYTimes discovered that Rick Davis' lobbying firm was receiving $15000 a month up until last month from Fannie Mac

4. Mccain's camp responds by saying Rick Davis doesnt get a salary from this or dividends

5. WEDS: Newsweek further points out that Rick Davis remains an owner, remains one of the 2 officers for the firm

6. Mccain's campaign hides Rick Davis... as part of its wednesday meltdown.

Personally, i think this is one of the biggest time bombs for his campaign and he may be forced to fire his CAMPAIGN MANAGER.

[karynnj]

22. The money is not from the company, but from employees

I drafted this letter that my husband got published in our local paper. (they limit you to one letter a month)

"Bill Rosen in his 9/20 letter to the editor repeats a constantly cited Republican talking point by saying that Barack Obama and John Kerry, along with Chris Dodd have received the most money from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. This is extremely misleading because it is intended to imply the money is from the company.

In addition to PAC money, individual contributions to political campaigns by people who work for these companies are included in those totals. When you donate money, you have to identify the company you work for and your contribution is aggregated with others from your company. The report on the open secrets.org website, shows that the vast majority of money going to Kerry and Obama was from individual contributions. Only $2000 and $6000 respectively was from the PAC. They are among the highest on the list because of their Presidential campaigns. The Republicans raised far less money this year and President Bush was obviously not on the list of Senators.

Senator Kerry fought the corruption of the BCCI bank, while Senator McCain was reprimanded by the Senate ethics committee as one of the Keating 5. Senator Obama was a lead player in putting teeth in the new Senate ethics bill, to which Senator Kerry contributed the Ward Cunningham amendment which starting in 1/1/2009 will take away Congressional pensions for people convicted of felonies.

This was Bush’s watch and the Republicans were the party of deregulation. Obama, not Clinton is running."

Here is the link to the open secrets report - note that the top people getting PAC money are top Republicnas, many on teh banking committees. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is an answer to another RW talking point. They speak of how McCain spoke out for regulation and co-sponsored a bill for regulation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. In, fact, the bill had been dormant for 10 months when he signed on (after the fact). No other people signed on after McCain and there were no additional Congressional actions. In addition, when that Congress ended, Hagel (the sponsor of the 2005 bill) and his two original sponsors of the 2005 bill (plus Martinez) sponsored S1100 on 4/12/2007 - less than a year after McCain's now widely trumpeted speech - and he did no co- sponsor it. Like the earlier one, it went nowhere.

In addition, the Republicans in the Banking Committee buried a bipartisan House bill. I wrote this comment on one of the financial blogs:

McCain actually signed onto S190 on 5/26/2006. That bill was originally introduced on 1/26/2005 by Senator Hagel with Senators Sununu and Dole as co-sponsors. That bill was sent to the Republican controlled Banking committee, where it passed on 7/28/2005 but was never considered by the full Senate. McCain signed onto a bill that had been dormant for 10 months and gave that speech on the floor of the Senate. He then did nothing further to support it and no one else signed on as a co-sponsor.

Representatives Frank and Oxley backed a bi-partisan bill, sponsored by Baker, with stronger regulation of these companies (HR 1461) that passed 331 to 90 in the House on 10/26/2005. It was then referred to the Senate, where it went to the Banking Committee where it was defeated with all the Republicans on the committee, including the sponsors of S190, voting against it.

That speech and the co-sponsorship of a dormant bill are cited by the McCain campaign as proof of his efforts to regulate because it is the only thing they have.

On the Democratic side, there was a plank in the 2004 Democratic platform calling for eliminating mortgage and credit card abuse. It specifically called for prohibiting most balloon loans. Senator Kerry, who inserted that plank had a real history of fighting corrupt banking practices, including making the case against BCCI. Senator McCain, on the other hand, was one of the Keating 5.

McCain's actions to intimidate regulators to help his contributor, Charles Keating are more significant that a short Senate speech to an empty chamber and the action of signing onto a dead bill.

[HughMoran]

26. I knew it

This thread is bizarre and uninformed - concern noted!

[Orsino]

27. Yeah. Not the same thing as corporate donations...

...but should still be suspect. I think he's winning money from employees of the industry the right way, by offering what appear to be better solutions to problems.

[karynnj]

28. Why is it suspect?

When you give money - are you giving it to gain something for your company? People have looked at the detail. No pattern of suspicious donations were found for either Obama or Kerry. Believe me if there were hundreds of people making say $20,000 a year giving the maximum $4800 - you would see the type of front page article there was on the Clinton Chinatown donations. The fact is it doesn't look like that.

Part of the suspicion was fueled by people knowingly using these numbers in a way that they KNOW is not true. This cycle the worst offender on our side was John Edwards, who pointed at similar charts to claim that Obama and HRC got the most money from health care professionals and insurance companies. The truth was simply that they both had better fund raising than he did.

[Orsino]

29. Only on general principles.

Specifically mine, which states that money shouldn't be equated with speech--and that therefore all political donations are problematic.

[karynnj]

30. I bet you would like this speech then given in introducing the clean elections, clean money bill

that Kerry and Wellstone sponsored. That bill, not McCain/Feingold would have been real campaign finance reform.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to speak before you today about a critical challenge before this Senate--the challenge of reforming the way in which elections are conducted in the United States; the challenge of ending the ``moneyocracy'' that has turned our elections into auctions where public office is sold to the highest bidder. I want to implore the Congress to take meaningful steps this year to ban soft money, strengthen the Federal Election Commission, provide candidates the opportunity to pay for their campaigns with clean money, end the growing trend of dangerous sham issue ads, and meet the ultimate goal of restoring the rights of average Americans to have a stake in their democracy. Today I am proud to join with my colleague from Minnesota, PAUL WELLSTONE, to introduce the ``Clean Money'' bill which I believe will help all of us entrusted to shape public policy to arrive at a point where we can truly say we are rebuilding Americans' faith in our democracy.
For the last 10 years, I have stood before you to push for comprehensive campaign reform. We have made nips and tucks at the edges of the system, but we have always found excuses to hold us back from making the system work. It's long past time that we act--in a comprehensive way--to curtail the way in which soft money and the big special interest dollars are crowding ordinary citizens out of this political system.
Today the political system is being corrupted because there is too much unregulated, misused money circulating in an environment where candidates will do anything to get elected and where, too often, the special interests set the tone of debate more than the political leaders or the American people. Just consider the facts for a moment. The rising cost of seeking political office is outrageous. In 1996, House and Senate candidates spent more than $765 million, a 76% increase since 1990 and a six fold increase since 1976. Since 1976, the average cost for a winning Senate race went from $600,000 to $3.3 million, and in the arms race for campaign dollars in 1996 many of us were forced to spend significantly more than that. In constant dollars, we have seen an increase of over 100 percent in the money spent for Senatorial races from 1980 to 1994. Today Senators often spend more time on the phone ``dialing for dollars'' than on the Senate floor. The average Senator must raise $12,000 a week for six years to pay for his or her re-election campaign.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg. The use of soft money has exploded. In 1988, Democrats and Republicans raised a combined $45 million in soft money. In 1992 that number doubled to reach $90 million and in 1995-96 that number tripled to $262 million. This trend continues in this cycle. What's the impact of all that soft money? It means that the special interests are being heard. They're the ones with the influence. But ordinary citizens can't compete. Fewer than one third of one percent of eligible voters donated more than $250 in the electoral cycle of 1996. They're on the sidelines in what is becoming a coin-operated political system.
The American people want us to act today to forge a better system. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 77% of the public believes that campaign finance reform is needed ``because there is too much money being spent on political campaigns, which leads to excessive influence by special interests and wealthy individuals at the expense of average people.'' Last spring a New York Times found that an astonishing 91% of the public favor a fundamental transformation of this system.
Cynics say that the American people don't care about campaign finance. It's not true. Citizens just don't believe we'll have the courage to act--they're fed up with our defense of the status quo. They're disturbed by our fear of moving away from this status quo which is destroying our democracy. Soft money, political experts tell us, is good for incumbents, good for those of us within the system already. Well, nothing can be good for any elected official that hurts our democracy, that drives citizens out of the process, and which keeps politicians glued to the phone raising money when they ought to be doing the people's business. Let's put aside the status quo, and let's act today to restore our democracy, to make it once more all that the founders promised it could be.
Let us pass the Clean Mo ney Bill to restore faith in our government in this age when it has been so badly eroded.
Let us recognize that the faith in government and in our political process which leads Americans to go to town hall meetings, or to attend local caucuses, or even to vote--that faith which makes political expression worthwhile for ordinary working Americans--is being threatened by a political system that appears to reward the special interests that can play the game and the politicians who can game the system.
Each time we have debated campaign finance reform in this Senate, too many of our colleagues have safeguarded the status quo under the guise of protecting the political speech of the Fortune 500. But today we must pass campaign finance reform to protect the political voice of the 250 million ordinary, working Americans without a fortune. It is their dwindling faith in our political system that must be restored.
Twenty five years ago, I sat before the Foreign Relations Committee, a young veteran having returned from Vietnam. Behind me sat hundreds of veterans committed to ending the war the Vietnam War. Even then we questioned whether ordinary Americans, battle scarred veterans, could have a voice in a political system where the costs of campaigns, the price of elected office seemed prohibitive. Young men who had put their life on the front lines for their country were worried that the wall of special interests between the people and their government might have been too thick even then for our voices to be heard in the corridors of power in Washington, D.C.
But we had a reserve of faith left, some belief in the promise and the influence of political expression for all Americans. That sliver of faith saved lives. Ordinary citizens stopped a war that had taken 59,000 American lives.
Every time in the history of this republic when we have faced a moral challenge, there has been enough faith in our democracy to stir the passions of ordinary Americans to act--to write to their Members of Congress; to come to Washington and speak with us one on one; to walk door to door on behalf of issues and candidates; and to vote on election day for people they believe will fight for them in Washington.
It's the activism of citizens in our democracy that has made the American experiment a success. Ordinary citizens--at the most critical moments in our history--were filled with a sense of efficacy. They believed they had influence in their government.

Today those same citizens are turning away from our political system. They believe the only kind of influence left in American politics is the kind you wield with a checkbook. The senior citizen living on a social security check knows her influence is inconsequential compared to the interest group that can saturate a media market with a million dollars in ads that play fast and loose with the facts. The mother struggling to find decent health care for her children knows her influence is trivial compared to the special interests on K Street that can deliver contributions to incumbent politicians struggling to stay in office.
But I would remind you that whenever our country faces a challenge, it is not the special interests, but rather the average citizen, who holds the responsibility to protect our nation. The next time our nation faces a crisis and the people's voice needs to be heard to turn the tide of history, will the average American believe enough in the process to give words to the feelings beyond the beltway, the currents of public opinion that run beneath the surface of our political dialogue?
In times of real challenge for our country in the years to come, will the young people speak up once again? Not if we continue to hand over control of our political system to the special interests who can infuse the system with soft money and with phony television ads that make a mockery of the issues.
The children of the generation that fought to lower the voting age to 18 are abandoning the voting booth themselves. Polls reveal they believe it is more likely that they'll be abducted by aliens than it is that their vote will make a real difference. For America's young people the MTV Voter Participation Challenge ``Choose or Lose'' has become a cynical joke. In their minds, the choice has already been lost--lost to the special interests. That is a loss this Senate should take very seriously. That is tremendous damage done to our democracy, damage we have a responsibility in this Senate to repair. Mr. President, with this legislation we are introducing today, we can begin that effort--we can repair and revitalize our political process, and we can guarantee ``clean elections'' funded by ``clean money,'' elections where our citizens are the ones who make the difference

[Orsino]

31. Heck, yeah. n/t

[karynnj]

32. It was from around 1997 and is one of my favorite JK Senate speeches