Posted on 12/07/2008 1:13:55 PM PST by STARWISE
The incoming Obama administration has notified all politically-appointed ambassadors that they must vacate their posts as of Jan. 20, the day President-elect Barack Obama takes the oath of office, a State Department official said.
The clean slate will open up prime opportunities for the president-elect to reward political supporters with posts in London, Paris, Tokyo and the like. The notice to diplomatic posts was issued this week.
Political ambassadors sometimes are permitted to stay on briefly during a new administration, but the sweeping nature of the directive suggests that Obama has little interest in retaining any of Bush's ambassadorial appointees.
(Excerpt) Read more at voices.washingtonpost.com ...
This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
((LINKS DON'T WORK HERE, BUT DO AT PAGE LINK ABOVE.))
Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY's List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers.
| University of California | $909,283 |
| Goldman Sachs | $874,207 |
| Harvard University | $717,230 |
| Microsoft Corp | $714,108 |
| Google Inc | $701,099 |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co | $581,460 |
| Citigroup Inc | $581,216 |
| National Amusements Inc | $543,859 |
| Time Warner | $508,148 |
| Sidley Austin LLP | $492,445 |
| Stanford University | $481,199 |
| Skadden, Arps et al | $473,424 |
| Wilmerhale Llp | $466,679 |
| UBS AG | $454,795 |
| Latham & Watkins | $426,924 |
| Columbia University | $426,516 |
| Morgan Stanley | $425,102 |
| IBM Corp | $415,196 |
| University of Chicago | $414,555 |
| US Government | $400,819 |
###
DONORS AS OF NOV. 15, 2008 TO THE OBAMA/BIDEN TRANSITION TEAM
In keeping with President-elect Obama's pledge to run the most open and transparent transition in history, the Obama-Biden Transition Project has voluntarily chosen to release the names of its donors on a monthly basis. As of November 15, 2008, a total of $1,170,937.44 had been raised from 1,776 donors.
The Obama-Biden Transition project only accepts contributions from individuals' personal funds – we refuse all donations from corporations, labor unions, and PACs. Individuals may not donate more than $5,000. We also refuse all contributions from registered federal lobbyists and registered foreign agents.
###
Obama's big donors outweighed small
"......A new analysis of the more than $600 million that Obama raised shows that about one quarter of it came from people giving less than $200. About the same percentage - 25 percent - that President Bush collected in his own record-breaking reelection campaign fundraising in 2004.
Our colleague at the Ticket, Andrew Malcolm, cites a study of the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute.
"The myth is that money from small donors dominated Barack Obama's finances," CFI's executive director Michael Malbin says. "The reality of Obama's fundraising was impressive, but the reality does not match the myth."
Only 26 percent of Obama's contributions through August and only 24 percent through Oct. 15 came from people whose total donations added up to less than $200, with Malcolm emphasizing "the key word there being 'total."
A small donor might be someone who scraped together $199, he notes, but not someone who donated $199 to the Obama campaign several times, perhaps totaling close to the $4,600 legal limit for the primary and general elections."In aggregate, that would vault him/her out of the small donor category that was so useful to the political campaign's public relations campaign portraying the donor base as about two times as broad as it really was.''
The analysis shows that Obama actually received 80 percent more money from large donors (those giving $1,000 or more total) than from small donors.
The $119 million raised by genuine small donors through the Democratic National Convention is "impressive,'' Malcolm notes, but perhaps "not as impressive'' as the $210 million raised by bundlers and large donors by that point.
"After a more thorough analysis of data from the Federal Election Commission (FEC)," the CFI study says, "it has become clear that repeaters and large donors were even more important for Obama than we or other analysts had fully appreciated."
###
In July, a few weeks before the Democratic National Convention, Obama and his handlers formed joint fund-raising committees through a loophole (ironically created by the McCain-Feingold Act------THANKS FOR THAT, JOHN!!) that allows individual donors to write checks far surpassing federal limits of $2,300 — if the money was shared between a candidate and his party’s national and state committees.
As a result of the loophole, “[The party committees] are avenues for individuals and others to legally donate tens of thousands of dollars,” says Boyle of Common Cause. John McCain created a similar committee, using the very loophole he had authored.
Individual donors promptly began writing checks of $25,000 or more to Obama’s and McCain’s committees. Even as the world of high finance began its stunning Wall Street meltdown, the biggest check-writers to both men were executives from securities and investment companies, according to The New York Times.
The entertainment industry was also a top contributor, vastly preferring Obama.
So-called bundlers also contributed heavily to both.
These ultimate political insiders, who collect donations from wealthy friends, business associates and other contacts, locally included Hollywood moguls David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg, both of whom have raised at least $500,000 for Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Basically, when you went to the movies over the last couple of years, you were making a donation to Barack Obama.
MacDonald’s article explores the question whether Obama is going to be the first guy in history to take scads of money from people and not let it affect the way he governs.
~~~
I was looking for the donors who would likely be rewarded with ambassadorships for their big dollar donations, but all this kept cropping up. What does it matter? We truly are pawns, peasants, sheep and idiots in their high stakes games. And all this is another reason to forget about and LOSE McCain from our midst .. forever!
How’s Ann Cox Chambers getting along?
Looks like Whoopie Goldberg is going to get her ambassadorship. It’s all she can talk about lately.
This is no surprise. It is all about power, quid pro quo, and the status quo. We saw much the same thing with the Clinton mob. Again, it all distills down to POWER and building as much support in the ranks, for rank socialism and an authoritarian egotist. Nice job liberal voters....
Hey, almost $800 million in contributions, they need to be paid off asap.
Well, well well, so as Obama vacates Bush’s appointments, when will the Senate hearings start to find out, WHY??
Are they still bellyaching over GWB's firing of a few judges?
Is such wide-spread housecleaning the “norm” when a new President comes in to office? My memory doesn’t bring to the front memories of quite such dramatic eviction from offices... But it could be my memory.
One can only wince at the folks this guy will appoint. The security of the United States will be non-existent.
“I can hear it now. I didn’t really know these people. I just met them a few times. Who knew?”
BananObama rides in on his giant snail to save the nation, leaving a giant snail trail behind everywhere he goes.
The American people voted for change. We had capitalism, change to socialism. We had a constitution, change to executive directive.
What didn't you understand? /s
“Looks like Whoopie Goldberg is going to get her ambassadorship. It’s all she can talk about lately.”
Please tell me that’s some kind of joke that I’m not in on.
I recently spoke with a liberal who said that Bush’s firings of US Attorneys was scandalous, while the Clinton firings were perfectly okay. His explanation was that Clinton fired all US Attorneys, while Bush selectively fired. He could not explain why mass firings was somehow preferable.
In the unlikely event the GOP ever wins the WH again, what with participating with the socialists in expanding the right to vote to all of the groups the founders warned against, it would be refreshing if they would take a clue from the commies and actually grow a tiny pair and clean house, unlike the moron who is leaving.
This is exactly what GWB should have done government wide 8 years ago. We would not be suffering this administration. I cannot fault him for cleaning house even though I’m sure his replacements will give me reason to wretch.
|
US government: For Sale.
“Looks like Whoopie Goldberg is going to get her ambassadorship. It’s all she can talk about lately.”
Really?
Does she realize yet that she hasnt been a slave at any point in her life? Is that enough for odumbo to appoint her to a position of this pay grade?
My doctor recommends that I don’t jungle chainsaws nor watch the View. Good advice for everyone.
And he has not taken the “oath of office”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.