According to a New York Times article, Barack Obama’s joint fund raising committees have received, just in the month of September, donations from more than 600 donors in amounts of $25,000 or more. So, despite what commenter Helen L. wrote, Obama isn’t relying on just $5 and $10 contributions from ordinary people. He apparently has lots of those evil rich people on his side.
I’m not trying to make a case that there’s anything wrong with those contributions. I’m for freedom, remember? I’m against unconstitutional restrictions on campaigning.
I’m pointing out how ironic it is for the candidate who loves the poor and castigates the rich to have so many rich donors on his team. Why does Obama spend the money on advertising instead of “spreading it around.” That’s what he believes in, isn’t it? Shouldn’t he be giving it to poor plumbers and waitresses?
I’m not stupid–well, not very stupid! I realize that it takes money to run a campaign. As I said, I see nothing wrong with any candidate getting big bucks from willing donors. Go for it! But don’t say one thing and do another. It’s called hypocrisy.
Don’t talk about wealth as though it is something dirty, and then spend hundreds of millions of dollars trying to become President. Don’t say that money needs to be distributed to the poor so that everyone has the same opportunities, and then spend huge sums of money to buy TV spots. Don’t claim to be for change, and then run your campaign the same old way–with donations from rich industrialists who will count on your support once you are in the White House. At least Republicans admit that they are on the side of big business. Obama claims to be against big business but certainly isn’t against receiving their big bucks. One of his donors is CEO of Duke Energy. Another is the CEO of Travel Guard, an affiliate of AiG. Yes, that’s the same AiG that got a huge government bailout. Hmm. . . .
An article in the Los Angeles Times lists other major donors to the Obama campaign, including lots of corporate executives and movie stars.