Which major candidate is most (& least) BEHOLDEN to Lobbyists and Special Interests???

Take a look:



Here are the contributions to all candidates from "Pharmaceuticals/Health Products":

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=H04



Here is the candidate contribution breakdown for the "Insurance" related industry:

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F09


Here are the totals for "Lobbyists":

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=K02







(Other industry sectors available in the drop down menu at the above link.)






HRC & Obama totals are similar, particularly Re: "Insurance" and "Pharmaceutical/Health Products" contributions.

As the only candidate to go the public financing route (and to get far more votes per dollar than ANY of our other candidates) Edwards has MARKEDLY DIFFERENT totals.


Who is most, & who is least, beholden to industry interests?


Who is best positioned to "take on" (in HRC's words) the drug companies and insurance interests?








:kick:











:kick:

as well as Hillary and Obama in the polls, he'd have bad money lining up behind him. Ron Paul doesn't get that $$$ even though he wants businesses to regulate themselves. Why? Because he is considered absolutely unviable.

blows that whole meme about Edwards out of the water.

Go ahead and NAME all the "Hedge Funds" that Edwards has been involved with..... we are waiting.... and if you cannot come up multiple sources you should once and for all apologize and shut up.

It shows that he has taken a fraction compared to almost everyone else. Shows to me that all the slurs against him for working for one for a few months, and investing a few thousand dollars is mute when the people bringing it up are accepting money from the same people they are railing against. :shrug:

Hedge Funds
Rudolph W. Giuliani (R)
$1,157,900

Hillary Clinton (D)
$980,700

Barack Obama (D)
$976,574

Mitt Romney (R)
$947,500

Christopher J. Dodd (D)
$915,950

John McCain (R)
$331,850

John Edwards (D)
$252,550

Bill Richardson (D)
$129,400

Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D)
$61,200

Fred Thompson (R)
$34,200

Sam Brownback (R)
$20,150

Ron Paul (R)
$6,300

Tom Tancredo (R)
$1,500

Duncan Hunter (R)
$1,000

Hedge Funds & Private Equity:

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F27



Certainly doesn't look to be "blown out of the water"


You certainly do have a point, though, that the corrupting influence of our present campaign financing system effects all of our (& our opponents) candidates.


However, as the only candidate to go the public financing route, & with markedly less special interest contributions than his primary opponents (& getting far more votes per dollar spent than anyone), Edwards appears best positioned to "take on" (as HRC terms it) the special interests, particularly in the area of healthcare reform, which is certainly critical to this election cycle.










:kick:

better? :)

same info posted earlier

duh.

Major doesn't necessarily mean "best", but it does mean someone who can get *at* least 10% in a primary IMO.

PS---I hate when people say lawyers are behind Edwards. Not because it isn't true, but because lawyers are SO low down the list of special interest groups we should fear.

Does anyone *really* fare undue lawyer influence compared to the influence of Big Oil, Big Pharma, The Defense Industry or Health care (to name some obvious examples)?

Finally, it's important to point out that the idea that Edwards would have just a much "bad money" if he were the front-runner isn't necessarily true. My evidence? Look at the *percentages* of where he gets his money. Much more of Hillary's money comes from business interests vs labor interests for Edwards.

after Bushco's tort reforms (witnessed firsthand here in Texas!), I'll take "trial lawyers" any day! We need more trials! Less tort reform, more trials!!!!!!!

:D

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=K01

In terms of $$$, this lawyers and law firms are outspending the next group down (retired!) by almost 2 to 1, and outspending your selected indutries by almost 10 to 1.

And while Hillary still has the number 1 spot with lawyers... Edwards is very close behind and Barak is not far behind Edwards.

Our current corrupt election financing system effects every candidate.

However, Edwards does not compare unfavorably to our alternatives even in the area of lawyer contributions. (Basically, no significant difference there)

And in the areas which will effect HEALTHCARE REFORM, which are the items specifically linked in the OP, there are HUGE differences.

Perhaps that may explain why the HRC & Obama plans could as well have been written by industry lobbyists (just as was the Republican Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, one of the worst pieces of legislation of all time).

Edwards's health care plan is not perfect. Only Kucinich advocates a single payor plan, which is the only one which can tap the 30%+ insurance company inefficiency to help make the cost of universal coverage affordable.

I would far prefer Kucinich's plan.

Unfortunately, he is no longer a contender.

Of the contending candidates, only Edwards appears positioned to be able to confront the entrenched interests, which will be needed to pass healthcare reform that is not simply more corporate welfare.

This springs from the simple fact that he is the ONLY candidate willing to go with public election financing.

Look at the contribution totals.

The differences are HUGE.











:kick:

and last I heard, he is still running.

But I agree, it will be hard for him to get the nomination...

Either Edwards or Obama is OK with me. I'll vote for Hillary if she is the nominee, but I won't do so with any enthusiasm.

I hate when people say lawyers are behind Edwards so therefore he's just as beholden to special interests as anyone else. Not because it isn't true, but because lawyers are SO low down the list of special interest groups we should fear.

Does anyone *really* fear undue lawyer influence compared to the influence of Big Oil, Big Pharma, The Defense Industry or Health care (to name some obvious examples)?

Finally, it's important to point out that the idea that Edwards would have just a much "bad money" if he were the front-runner isn't necessarily true. My evidence? Look at the *percentages* of where he gets his money. Much more of Hillary's money comes from business interests vs labor interests for Edwards.

All I was pointing out is that the really BIG bucks are coming from this "interest group" (special or not)... and they are going to all THREE of our frontrunners. Maybe a good thing, maybe not.

I don't want undue influence because of MONEY from any group...

there's an enormous difference between lawyer influence and defense industry influence. The latter very well could push us closer to more war!

sometimes to their benefit... sometimes to the benefit of us all. It's no surprise that most people in politics have law degrees. I think sometimes that it's unfortunate, but then there it is. Lawyers are good at debate, a skill needed by a politician.

But again, I don't want any group to have UNDUE influence because they can write big checks. It goes against the grain of "all people are created equal" and "one person, one vote". See... I can't write my politicians big checks ( and when I could and did, I got me some ACCESS ), but it shouldn't be that way. The vast majority of us can't write big checks... so why did I get invited to private parties with the candidates back then, and I'm not invited now (I'm broke again... sigh).

And even when I could write some big checks, I couldn't match what big industries or big law practices can do. I can't imagine the type of ACCESS those people get on a routine basis...

consider Edwards this morning clarifying on ABC's This Week with George S. stating clearly that he will not have ANY lobbyists in his administration *including* lawyers.

... or they just might get called on it and exposed themselves.

This is the "let's bring up old sayings" thread, right?

He is.

:hi:

the rest at least don't lie about it. Lobbyist money is as green as a grassroots activist's money. The bank will take both. Only thing is the lobbyist has more of it.

:dunce:

Trial Lawyers speak FOR ME and all of the other little guys in America when they bring suits against the BIG CORPORATIONS.

How many of the lobbyists for BIG PHARMA speak for the little guy?

as Edwards is the #3 candidate. Hence Edwards is receiving less funds than the #1 and #2 candidates.

If Edwards was the frontrunner, and projected nominee, I would be willing to bet his contributions from these industries would be far, far higher.

This is speculation obviously, but seems to make sense to me .

that Edwards has pledged to FIGHT the Corporation and limit their ability to influence our government?

I believe that they will stick with the candidates who have promised to go along to get along and NOT rock the BIG MONEY boat....Hillary and Obama.

Methinks there is no water in your bucket sir/ma'am.

regardless of what happens (near guarantee of being in the cabinet) but that is a good point. Maybe my bucket isn't totally full of water...