posted August 04, 2012 07:40 PM            

Click over to read the story, but here are the accompanying charts.

*

*

posted August 05, 2012 09:03 AM            

I wonder why these leftist saps couldn't find the 200 million in campaign contributions to O'Bomber from labor unions?

I wonder why these leftist saps couldn't find the out of balance campaign contributions to O'Bomber from trial lawyer groups?

I wonder why these leftist saps couldn't find the campaign contributions from O'Bomber's fellow Marxists...George Soros, Peter Lewis, the Sandlers...Herbert and Marion and other Marxists whose campaign money was laundered through the Tides Foundation...and others too?

Oh wait, I know why. These leftist saps didn't want of find those totally out of balance campaign contibutions made to their little Marxist Messiah...O'Bomber.

Just for the record, if Mother Jones mag said the sun rises in the East, I'd be out tomorrow morning at sunrise to check for myself because Mother Jones mag has absolutely no credibility.

posted August 07, 2012 02:59 AM            

FEC Alerts

Super PAC spending and fundraising by political leaning, 2011-12

Totals on this page reflect money raised and spent by super PACs in the 2012 election cycle. One caveat: Super PACs account for only part of the outside spending picture. For a more complete accounting, see the outside spending overview page.

Sunlight researchers determined the political orientation of super PACs by reviewing spending and public communications patterns. We are including a "political orientation" column in our downloadable .csv file summarizing super PACs financials. For more details, see our methodology.

Cash on hand, Democratic-aligned Super PACs: $25,670,114
Cash on hand, Republican-aligned Super PACs: $79,133,157
Cash on hand, all other Super PACs: $5,986,897
Cash on hand reflects the balance as of each super PACs most recent filing. Some file reports monthly: They are due on the 20th of each month. Some file quarterly. Those statements are due on the 15th of the month following the close of the quarter. Note that quarterly filers also have to file pre- and post-election reports, timed to the primary and general election dates.

Total independent expenditures by Super PAC party orientation
Total independent expenditures, Democratic-aligned Super PACs: $50,639,064
Total independent expenditures, Republican-aligned Super PACs: $176,984,072
Total independent expenditures, all other Super PACs: $5,855,671

posted August 07, 2012 02:03 PM            

Further acoustic, I haven't noticed a response to the people left in the shadows in these so called reports. George Soros, Peter Lewis, the Sandlers, the Tides Foundation et al. The billionaires who fund bullshiit progressive causes, in many cases laundering the money through the Tides Foundation or other leftist money laundering operations. Or labor unions who spend their members money on political campaigns...without their consent or Trial Lawyers Associations who do the same thing.

posted August 07, 2012 02:27 PM            

Total independent expenditures, Democratic-aligned Super PACs: $50,817,836
Total independent expenditures, Republican-aligned Super PACs: $177,046,572
Total independent expenditures, all other Super PACs: $5,992,849

Total itemized contributions, Democratic-aligned Super PACs: $77,365,653
Total itemized contributions, Republican-aligned Super PACs: $218,877,900
Total itemized contributions, all other Super PACs: $10,432,031

Yet, despite this information being given to you, you're claiming that you're bringing some balance to the conversation. How's that?

posted August 09, 2012 02:59 PM            

August 9, 2012
The Left-Wing Money Machine
By Joseph Smith

Democrats and the media like to paint Republicans as the party of big money, calling out Karl Rove and the Koch Brothers, when in reality the progressive money machine vastly outweighs conservative sources of funds. The Democrat money advantage is so one-sided, in fact, that it is a wonder that Republicans and conservatives are able to win as many elections as they do.

We on the right hear much of George Soros and the Tides Foundation, but it is never quite clear just where all the money comes from to support the myriad left-wing pressure groups that agitate the public and shift the national debate farther and farther to the left.

From illegal immigration and socialized medicine to radical environmentalism and formidable government unions, there is a never-ending flow of funds and coercion toward left-wing causes, at the expense of traditional, conservative American values.

A recent book, The New Leviathan, subtitled How the Left-Wing Money Machine Shapes American Politics and Threatens America's Future, by David Horowitz and Jacob Laskin, examines the forces behind the dangerous and seemingly inexorable push to the left on so many issues of critical national import.

The authors focus on the numerous foundations that provide funding to such radical groups as the National Council of La Raza, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights League, and the Center for American Progress.

The central point of the book is that left-wing foundations outweigh conservative foundations by a factor of more than ten, in both total assets and the value of grants awarded. This is exactly the reverse of what the left-controlled media recites over and over again in its drive to promote the Democrats as the party of the little guy.

An exhaustive appendix of tables listing progressive and conservative foundations, their assets, and their annual grants and revenues shows progressive foundations with assets totaling $104.6 billion, compared with $10.3 billion for conservative foundations, and progressive grants awarded totaling $8.8 billion, compared with conservative grants awarded totaling just $0.8 billion1.

The result is that the resources available to progressive immigration groups, for example, are 22 times those available to conservative groups, a fact reflected in the continual pressure from the left to open the border and decriminalize illegals.

The authors also find that there are 552 "progressive environmental groups that promote radical views that are anti-business," and just 32 "conservative environmental groups that promote market-friendly solutions," with similar massive funding advantages accruing to the environmental extremists.

As the authors note, the aggressive environmental agenda of the Obama administration reflects the fact that "the financial muscle of these foundations brought the radicals out of the wilderness and into the mainstream of the nation's environmental politics"4.

A look at the Grants Database of the Ford Foundation, which is the second-largest foundation in total assets (to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation), and which provided the seed money for both the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Fund5, shows hundreds of entities receiving grants, including the National Council of La Raza for $1.6 million this year, and the Center for American Progress for $1.7 million, as well as the Tides Foundation for $250,000, the National Network of Abortion Funds for $300,000, and the National Health Law Program for $300,000, to name a few.

A few minutes perusing the Ford database is instructive as to the nature of the groups receiving grants from the Foundation. Note that the foundation's website states that the foundation gradually divested its Ford Motor Company stock by 1974 (lest you wonder if your new car purchase is funding leftist causes).

Compounding the left's big-money advantage are the public-sector and other unions, from the SEIU to the NEA, whose intimidating tactics and powerful financial influence promote the same radical agenda and were a major factor in the election of our current president.

As the authors point out, the inability of conservatives to influence the ObamaCare debate "illustrates the Left's institutional advantage in orchestrating social change - its financial dominance and its far more developed political coordination"6.

Horowitz and Laskin employ the example of the Woods Fund, whose board Barack Obama and Bill Ayers both served on, and observe that after the most active Woods family member died, "control of the previously traditional charity fell into the hands of leftist staffers, including veterans of the Midwest Academy, who hijacked its agenda and pushed the foundation aggressively to the left[.]" Further7:

The Woods fund trajectory - an apolitical, even conservative, foundation swerving dramatically to the left - was to repeat itself throughout the philanthropic culture.

The authors also detail the transformation of the now-progressive Pew Charitable Trusts, a group founded by "oil tycoon and Christian conservative J. Howard Pew in 1957 to educate Americans on the 'values of the free market' and the 'paralyzing effects of government controls on the lives and activities of the people'"8.

These were foundations created by good men who worked hard, amassed a fortune, and left it for what they hoped would be good in the world, only to have it hijacked by radicals seeking to transform and reorder the world.

The authors conclude by observing that the foundations of the New Leviathan do not answer to voters or to supporters and are accountable to no one for the agendas they advance to change the direction of America9:

The New Leviathan is self-sufficient and self-perpetuating. It is an aristocracy of wealth whose dimensions exceed any previous accumulations of financial power, whose influence already represents a massive disenfranchisement of the American people and whose agendas pose a disturbing prospect for the American future.

With the overwhelming financial advantage of the left-wing money machine, it is hard to take seriously a president who castigates Republicans as the party of the rich.

posted August 09, 2012 04:04 PM            

while I am at it [calling out your usually suspect list of blog references with lobbying ties] Where, oh where is Human Events? [sic] hopefully kicked to the curb for their raft of partisan bs, that is worth...kindling.

I listen to CSPAN radio ALLOT. I get much of my initial info from the stable [that is a horses mouth reference in case you missed it.] Then I go and look at voting records and actual Bills.

To refute the actual dollars raised by Repubs as superseded by the Party of Big Money is laughable....same as it ever was

I don't care two hoots and a holler about your delusional mindset. What I do care about is the posting of outright falsehoods.

Currently Repubs are 3/1 in the dollars race. Why don't you own that? Hum-- that too goes against your best interests, which as far as anyone can tell is pure party politics.

posted August 10, 2012 11:45 AM            

The title contains a word leftists avoid like the plague. "Thinker". Of course leftists are wise to avoid that word. Thinking is certainly not leftists strong suit...or they wouldn't be leftists to begin with.

Yeah, I'm not surprised Romney is outraising O'Bomber this time around. But, I don't recall you whining and moaning in 2008 when O'Bomber outraised McCain dramatically and from some of the same sources who are now Romney contributors.

posted August 10, 2012 02:24 PM            

No sale acoustic.

However acoustic, I find it incredible...even for you...to claim Romney's campaign funders consists of only 47 donors.

However acoustic, I find it perfectly in character for you to overlook O'Bomber's primary campaign sources...George Soros, Peter Lewis, the Sandlers, the Tides Foundation, Move-on, private sector and public sector labor unions, trial lawyers associations, along with millionaires and Billionaires who O'Bomber paid back with taxpayer funds invested into their boondoggles.

posted August 10, 2012 02:37 PM            

quote:

---

However acoustic, I find it incredible...even for you...to claim Romney's campaign funders consists of only 47 donors.

---

No. I agree it's not solely 47 donors. It's 47 donors to the conservative Super PACS as the Mother Jones article stated.

quote:

---

However acoustic, I find it perfectly in character for you to overlook O'Bomber's primary campaign sources...George Soros, Peter Lewis, the Sandlers, the Tides Foundation, Move-on, private sector and public sector labor unions, trial lawyers associations, along with millionaires and Billionaires who O'Bomber paid back with taxpayer funds invested into their boondoggles.

That's the reason the "Hypocrisy Music" is playing right now acoustic.

---

posted August 10, 2012 08:12 PM            

MJones printed an article with charts and graphs -- data that came from the FEC! Got that?

here is a lovely little link JW contained in the article which you did not bother to read. http://www.demos.org/data-bytes/6318

If I were to try to discredit a source I would first inform myself as to the who/what/where/when/why & how's.

Others on this site listen to Rush on occasion, watch Hannity, and dip their toes into the rest of the talking points from the Usual Suspects of sources. Why? because we like to stay informed, and we like to hear what is being said....from all sides.

Then we form opinions.

A third grader could tell you that is a fair & balanced approach.

Now, can we talk about why you take issue with the OP? buying up all the free speech they can find

Is it false that "dark money" groups actually outspent Super PACs in the 2010 cycle by a substantial margin?

or:

quote:

---

One might think of today’s outside spending groups as megaphones for moguls and millionaires. The more money they pump in, the louder they’re able to amplify their voices—until a relatively few wealthy individuals and interests are dominating our public square, drowning out the rest of us.

---

posted August 11, 2012 11:26 AM            

The same can be said and has been said about the "progressive" source of the numbers used by Mother Jones.

The bias of this bullshiit is so thick it could be cut with a knife. Not one mention of the ultra radical leftist funders of O'Bomber or O'Bomber's super-pacs. Not one single word.

But, leave it to the usual suspects to gravitate straight to the bullshiiit. Bullshiit is all they have and they trot it out every election.

We've seen their playbook before. Hell, we know the plays better than they do!

Right now, they're trying to develop an excuse for losing the coming election.

We were outspent
The vote was suppressed
The election was rigged and stolen
Voting machines were hacked
Blah, blah, blah, blah

And, the hypocrisy is so deep on the ground it's difficult to wade through.

It was THE ONE, THE MARXIST MESSIAH O'Bomber who REFUSED public funding of his campaign in 2008...after McCain accepted public funding with it's limits on spending.

And yes, I made note of the fact O'Bomber refused public funding and it's limits and also the foreign connection..illegal..to much of his campaign contributions.

That was fair comment but making up bullshiiit so called statistics from Mother Jones and Progressives deserves comment as well.

Oh and btw, there's nothing progressive about so called "progressives". They're still peddling the same regressive Marxist bullshiiit from the 19th century. Someone needs to tell "progressives" Marx has been dead for more than a hundred years.

posted August 11, 2012 12:42 PM            

quote:

---

Actually we did dispose of Mother Jones as a credible source of news. Mother Jones falls into the category of "incredible news"...non-credible.

---

posted August 11, 2012 07:06 PM            

Mjones reported figures obtained from the FEC.

JW you still haven't stayed on point. All you are doing in this thread is blathering about MJones. Why don't you tell us what is not factual in the article, or better yet what your point is?

Otherwise you are wasting our time, as per usual.

Let us know when you have something salient to add will you?

posted August 12, 2012 01:50 PM            

Sorry that you're just not intellectually capable of understanding that hyper-biased sources are not in any way credible sources of news.

posted August 12, 2012 08:08 PM            

and you repeat this just a few posts up.

the 47 donors are NOT the only ones and NO ONE said they were EXCEPT YOU. once again you are accusing others of making the mistake YOU are guilty of.

posted August 13, 2012 08:54 AM            

No effort was even made to tell both sides of the story. That's the reason Mother Jones is known as a far left loony rag with no credibility.

Just to show how unbalanced the usual suspects are, they love the far left loons..newspapers, blogs, cable and mags... who only tell their side..the leftist side, of the story but despise Fox News which puts on advocates from both sides and gives viewers both sides of stories.