Hunter, Paul, Kucinick and Gravel dont accept lobbyist money and are being ignored by the media...coincidence?

Question

These are the only 4 current candidates that actually have integrity and would run the country for its people rather than corporations. I do not agree with all their ideas but at least they wouldn't be distracted by money.

Kucinich**

Answer 1

Obama doesn't accept money from big corporation lobbyists. Only PAC as they all do.

Edit: I can name you at least 22 companies that Ron Paul has ownership in or big stock options in such as Kinross Gold, Iam Gold Corp. Apollo Gold, Alumina, Petrol Oil & Gas, etc. etc. etc. And you surely aren't naive enough to think that these companies aren't helping. If you have ownership in something there are many ways to hide it. n E-mail me and I'll give them all to you. You're welcome to look them up. I just notice how none of you Ron Paul supporters mention this. But you're always talking about big corps. helping other candidates. Sort of like the pot calling the kettle black. It's real easy to have companies you own or are on the board of pass out $50 bills for people to contribute to the Ron Paul campaign.

Answer 2

In today's political atmosphere you need the endorsement of Transnational Corporations and there powerful lobbyists . the sad part is these corporations want whats best for them and if it interferes with whats best for us that doesn't really matter.
Everyday American Citizens aren't able to contribute that amount of cold cash to the political arena and they have more influence because of it when they are only a few.

That is why whether u love or hate or do not care about Ron Paul the amount of money we the people can raise without much help from the media in his case is a great thing for Democracy, just like Deans Campaign , it shows that Americans are becoming a bigger part of the political process as money is one of the 2 biggest things in winning. but Paul's campaign is the next step, and I am sure in 2012 the Internet will be even more influential, provided that a candidate that isn't a stooge of business is still allowed to run,

BE WARY the Loudest Voices in Both parties would limit the amount of people we can vote for, which just leads to less democracy , and creating a strong hold on the discussion that takes place, no dissent here sir.

Answer 3

Ron Paul puts principals before politics.

We don't need the media. We have the Internet.

Answer 4

Lobbyists are people too. Any political contribution is a type of lobby. There is nothing especially honest about not taking money from lobby groups. Truthfully, registered lobbyists are actually more honest than random contributors.

Answer 5

Of course it is not a coincidence, but you probably already new that. What are you willing to do about it?
Lobbyist have owned US government since its creation.

Answer 6

Remember networks are owned by big corporations who require money to operate. They don't want to piss off any potential sponsors. Especially the drug companies, the automobile manufacturers, oil companies, all advertise on TV.

Answer 7

But on Fox News, I am surprised that Mr. Hunter hasn't really come on and been more publicized...even with the 'fair and balanced' station...but excellent point and probably right on

Answer 8

Our media is beholden to special interests.. I’m not at all surprised that these candidates are overlooked.. they are the only ones that aren't "certified" corporate SELL-OUTS!



EDIT: Lettie, you are sorely off base.. are you referring to his investments in gold? He practices what he preaches. It's really paid off the last few years. Anyone who suggests that he is corrupt based on his investments is really stretching..

And the “pot calling the kettle black”? Congressman Paul isn’t the one who is claiming to be above special interests in Washington, that’s the platform Senator Obama is running on.

“Obama doesn't accept money from big corporation lobbyists” I know I’ve given you this information before, why are you denying it?

Here it is again:
"The junior Senator from Illinois denounces the corrosive influence of private political cash on U.S. democracy while cozying up to Chicago's notoriously corrupt Big Money Mayor Richard M. Daley (with whom he shares the same high-priced campaign consultant (David Axlerod) and raking in campaign largesse from wealthy world-capitalist interests. His top career sponsors include Goldman Sachs, Exelon (the world's leading nuclear plant operator), the Soros Fund Management, J.P Morgan Chase & Co., leading corporate law and lobbying firms (Kirkland & Ellis and Skadden, Arps, Sidley Austin LLP and others), top Chicago investment interests (including Henry Crown & Co and Aerial Capital Management) and the like.

Obama's reliance on such deep-pockets supporters helps explain why he voted for a business-driven "tort reform" bill that rolled back working peoples' ability to obtain reasonable redress and compensation from misbehaving corporations. It is certainly part of why he opposed an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act that would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent. It is undoubtedly related to his vote against a bill that would have killed an amendment to the 2005 energy bill that Taxpayers for Common Sense and Citizens Against Government Waste called "one of the worst provisions in this massive piece of legislation." Under the amendment, which passed with Obama's help, U.S. taxpayers are providing millions of dollars in loan guarantees to power plant operators. They "risk losing billions of dollars if the companies default," as Ken Silverstein wrote in the November, 2006 issue of Harper's Magazine ("Barack Obama Inc.: The Birth of a Washington Machine").

Special interest influence is certainly behind Obama's constant plugging of federally subsidized ethanol ("E-85") as an environmentally friendly "alternative fuel." Reliance on corporate cash and power is also likely related to Obama's opposition to the introduction of single-payer national health insurance on the curious grounds that such a welcome social-democratic change would lead to employment difficulties for workers in the private insurance industry and that "voluntary" solutions are "more consonant" with "the American character" than "government mandates." The latter judgment is advanced despite the fact that a large U.S. majority supports government-mandated universal health insurance.

Obama, it is worth noting, received $708,000 from medical and insurance interests between 2001 and 2006, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. His wife Michelle, a fellow Harvard Law graduate, is a Vice President for Community and External Affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals, a position that paid her $273, 618 in 2006. For what it's worth, she also received $51,200 for attending a few board meetings of TreeHouse Foods, a giant firm where she was made a director after Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate.

One day after Obama denounced Big Money control of U.S. politics in Iowa City, Iowa, the Los Angeles Times reported that Obama "raised more than $1 million in the first three months of his presidential campaign from law firms and companies that have major lobbying operations in the nation's capital." Obama has also received a combined $170,000 so far this year from financial giants Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, who together spent $4.6 million on federal lobbying in 2006.

"Obama received more than two-thirds (68 percent) of his first quarter 2007 fundraising total ‘from donations of $1000 or more.'"

The Los Angeles Times also reported that Obama received more than two-thirds (68 percent) of his first quarter 2007 fundraising total "from donations of $1000 or more." Obama has "played up populist themes of [campaign finance] reform," trumpeting his "large number of small donations" and claiming (in the Senator's words) to be "launch[ing]a fundraising drive that isn't about dollars.". But his astonishing first-quarter campaign finance haul of $25.7 million included $17.5 million from "big donors" ($1000 and up) - a sum higher than the much more genuinely populist and remarkably pro-labor John Edwards' total take ($14 million) from all donors.

According to Chicago Sun Times columnist Lynn Sweet, "Obama talks about transforming politics and touts the donations of ‘ordinary' people to his campaign, a network of more than 100 elite Democratic ‘bundlers' is raising millions of dollars for his White House bid. The Obama campaign prefers the emphasis be on the army of small donors who are giving - and raising - money for Obama. In truth, though, there are two parallel narratives - and the other is that Obama is also heavily reliant on wealthy and well-connected Democrats."

Senator Obama is a hypocrite & oppurtunist, critcizing money in politics.. then happily accepting contributions from PAC's, lobbyists & corporations..

Answer 9

hmmmm

Answer 10

I didn't know this. Thanks!