How does a bank that is "Broke" make political donations and handout millions in Bonuses?.....what a wonderful and strange world.

I love that picture.

The Speaker looks quite spiffy in his NASCAR jumpsuit. Let's make this de rigeur!

Perfect! Brilliant! Take it to the limit!

This picture is worth a thousand words..... Bravo

Everything fits but the Progressive part. Progressives believed in the superiority of American culture and limitation to, but understanding the power of, the free market (they can't be communist).

I agree, what's with the tens of thousands? This seems less like a bribe and more like a politician swap-meat.

I agree with you. here is today headline from the NY Times:

‘Bundlers’ for Obama Have Active Ties to Lobbying

By ERIC LICHTBLAU

Despite a pledge not to take money from lobbyists, President Obama is relying on fund-raisers who are involved in lobbying for Washington consulting shops or private companies.

You will never hear this discuss in TRMS

As far as the banks and Wall Street are concerned, the 2012 elections are over. It makes no difference to them who wins. They have contributed heavily to the Dems as well as the Republicans.

Yeah but at the same time a lobbyist is also a representative from The Wounded Warrior Project, the Humane Society, The Iraq And Afghanistan Veterans Association, etc. Saying someone takes money from lobbyists isn't necessarily a good or bad thing nor does it necessarily mean that someone is "bought and paid for." Lobbying simply means to petition the government for a specific cause; a lobbyist is an individual who petitions the government about a specific cause. Lobbyists can educate politicians on important issues and assist politicians w/ priorities. Special interest groups are the groups lobbyists petition on behalf of (unless a person just happens to be an individual addressing Congress or some other governmental organization). Special interests- again- are not inherently good or bad nor is in inherently wrong for a politician to listen to or take contributions from such groups. What is more important to ask: 1) who do these groups represent 2) who benefits from these groups and 3) what is the cost (to society) of allowing certain agendas to go before other agendas. I would not argue that a lobbyist like Paul Riekoff does anything wrong or that his interests are bad interests or that donations made by his organizations are bad donations. I would, however, argue that Goldman Sachs is a group that should not get more representation than the IAVA simply because they donate more money.

Additionally, Mike, your argument is a red herring. You are justifying the donations made to Boehner by saying "well but Obama/other politicians take(s) donations too." However I agree w/ your broader point that the bigger lobbying groups have definitely dominated the political spectrum and have unfair advantage over everyone else.

I have not justified either donations. What I am doing is pointing out the fact that both parties are captives of the special interests who are spreading money all over DC. The groups that represent Wounded Warriors and the like is not the target of my criticism. People should not look at politics through rose colored glasses and wishful thinking. Obama and the Dems are just as guilty of the same things that we mock the Republicans. If you look at my comments on OWS, I have made the same point. Both parties are guilty of catering to the special interests, particularly when those interests have a lot of money.

I like the donation from National Amusements, Inc. for over half a million. They own movie theater chains. I wonder what their "special interest" is in the President/federal government. Maybe there was concession price limits legislation they wanted squashed :).

Bear in mind that these are not the complete extent of donations to Obama. There are the individual campaign contributions from these groups and contributions to the PACS. The list is the tip of the iceberg because that is what is known right now. Some of the contributions won't come to light for a couple more months and the PACS have even less stringent reporting requirements.

US Government
$513,308

?????

Mouzer: The Goverment Unions.

Okay that makes more sense, but listing it as US Government is highly misleading. No union is ran by the government nor do unions allocate government funds to their own causes. They should've listed it as Multiple Unions Representing Federal Government Employees. Argh.

I don't give a crap how much money dems or republicans get....You are either for getting people to work or you are not?....Money is not the problem...the problem is what do you have to do to get the money?....what will you do when you get money?...Keep your damn money..just do the right thing by The American People!!

I'm impressed.

3 different universities in the top 10.

4 different wall street firms in the top 10.

Perfect mix of liberal and conservative.

From open secrets.org. Top contributors to Obama:

No big oil or coal industry here. Now finish these innuendos with what President Obama has done for them?

University of California Supporting the best candidate helping the American People not wanting favors
$1,648,685

Goldman Sachs Being investigated by SEC
$1,013,091

Harvard University Supporting the best candidate helping the American People not wanting favors

$878,164

Microsoft Corp Smart company helping the American People not wanting favors
$852,167

Google Inc Smart company helping the American People not wanting favors

$814,540

JPMorgan Chase & Co Being investigated by SEC

$808,799

Citigroup Inc Being investigated by SEC

$736,771

Time Warner
$624,618

Sidley Austin LLP
$600,298

Stanford University Supporting the best candidate helping the American People not wanting favors

$595,716

National Amusements Inc
$563,798

WilmerHale LLP
$550,668

Columbia University Supporting the best candidate helping the American People not wanting favors

$547,852

Skadden, Arps et al
$543,539

UBS AG
$532,674

IBM Corp Smart company helping the American People not wanting favors

$532,372

General Electric
$529,855

US Government
$513,308

Morgan Stanley Being investigated by SEC

$512,232

Latham & Watkins

The contributors are doing what the 1st Amendment provides for. All politician are beholden to interest groups. If my Homeowners Association wants to contribute money to a politician that favors our position, then we have the right to do so. It is the politician's duty to turn it down if it conflicts with his believes.

Amen...money is not the problem...if you can be bought for the donation...the politician is the problem...Focus on the crook. if you vote 55% or more in favor of any special interest group....You need to be looked at real close.

I don't agree about "getting wall street out of government".

I think "government should be in wall street".

The subprime mortgage crisis would never have happened if the US government operated an over-arching mortgage institution capable of taking over loans.

While technically prohibited by the constitution, a public-private partnership involving a large non-profit organization would be suitable. The interest income that exceeds operating expenses could provide an additional government revenue stream separate from taxes.

This would also stabilize the housing market.

If wall street can't handle it, then the government should compete.

All politician should be required to post the list of contributors within 24 hours of getting the money.

Tell that to chief justice Roberts of the supreme court.

That was not in the law. The SC can not create law from scratch. Congress had the opportunity to pass that law and they refused. SC ruled on whether donations are free speach or not, they decided it was. Congress needs to pass a sunshine law on contribution. Please read the "United" decision. You can do so at Wikipedia.

Or QT. Remember that stuff Vox?

Perhaps we should make a suggestion to Cialis?