Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Which Is Worse?: Eating Cupcakes or… | Misfits is Back... »

Monday, October 15, 2012

2012 Guess Which Presidential Candidate Is Making the Most from Military Donations?

Posted by Paul Constant on Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Now, though, the military's support has shifted toward Obama. Romney has consistently received little financial backing from military donors.

Despite the fact that Paul once raised almost twice as much as Obama did from the military, the president has received $536,414 from military donors, compared to Paul's $399,274 and Romney's $287,435, according to research by the Center for Responsive Politics. These numbers are based on donations greater than $200, as reported to the Federal Election Commission.

I can't recall another Democratic presidential candidate who led a Republican in military donations. Obama came close over McCain in 2008, but McCain eventually won. I don't think this is especially predictive, but I do think it's an interesting point.

FacebookShare

Comments (14) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

Tired of war.

Posted by Pope Peabrain on October 15, 2012 at 3:59 PM

It's symptomatic of a wider disparity: Obama is cleaning Romney's clock in donations from normal people. Obama has had 4 million donors this cycle. Romney's cash haul is comparable to Obama's, but that's only because the totals include donations to the national party committee, which are capped at iirc $35,000 instead of the iirc $2,000 cap on individual donations to a Presidential campaign. I don't know the numbers, but I'd not be surprised if Obama has taken in two or even three times as much as Romney has in donations to the campaign, rather than to the campaign combined with to the party. Since military donors are likely not cutting $35,000 checks to the party committee, it's not surprising Obama would dominate that category; any category he didn't dominate would have to reflect a big distortion from the overall numbers.

Posted by Warren Terra on October 15, 2012 at 4:07 PM

If you got rid of the top 100 donors to any campaign, Rmoney would be running on fumes.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on October 15, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Obama Top Ten

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contri…

University of California $706,931
Microsoft Corp $544,445
Google Inc $526,009
Harvard University $433,860
US Government $389,100
Deloitte LLP $369,401
DLA Piper $367,027
Stanford University $327,942
Kaiser Permanente $315,817
Sidley Austin LLP $312,278

Romney Top Ten

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contri…

Goldman Sachs $891,140
Bank of America $668,139
JPMorgan Chase & Co $663,219
Morgan Stanley $649,847
Credit Suisse Group $554,066
Citigroup Inc $418,263
Wells Fargo $414,750
Barclays $403,800
Kirkland & Ellis $393,667
Deloitte LLP $355,390

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe

on October 15, 2012 at 4:25 PM

To clarify SROTU's #4, since I assume their intent is to mislead:
1) This is a list by the donor's employer. Thus, institutions with a lot of employees (and especially a lot of white-collar employees) will dominate. Other organizations, such as hedge funds, can have huge per-capita donations but not show up because they're too small.
2) It's a list only of donors to the candidates. Those $35,000 checks to the party committees don't get included. "Independent expenditures", like Sherman Adelson's $100,000,000 pledge to back Romney, don't count.
3) It's only donations whose details have been disclosed, including employer. The only ones mandated to be disclosed (and campaigns often go beyond this, very spottily) are those over $200. See "white-collar" in my first point.
4) Every employer on Rmoney's list is a financial institution. Some (Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse) are infamous for corruption; others (BoA, Chase, Wells Fargo) are infamous for abusing their poorer customers.
5) Deloitte. Whodathunk?

Posted by Warren Terra on October 15, 2012 at 4:35 PM

@4 as pointed out from @5 you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

If I grab just the right numbers based on just the right circumstances, look there is no difference! They are one in the same!

That's like me saying "If I just look at the candidates mother's family history they're all white people!"

Posted by Pick1 on October 15, 2012 at 5:10 PM

What's really funny about Supreme Moron's list is Rmoney's top supporters are parasites just like him.

Posted by mubhappy on October 15, 2012 at 5:57 PM

@5 and @6 To be fair to our favorite Slog character, Open Secrets is a good website and the point remains that bankers - or at least their employees and those indirectly connected - are overwhelmingly pulling for Romney. We can speculate on the reasons, but it's a good bet that they have to do with Romney's stance on reforms of the financial industry - or lack thereof. Open Sectets also reports that Obama has a significantly higher percentage of his money coming from so-called small contributors.

Posted by floater on October 15, 2012 at 6:08 PM

This actually doesn't surprise me that much. An ad came out last week showing that some veterans, at least, aren't thrilled at the prospect of Mitt Romney as "Commander in Chief." http://trumanproject.org/in-the-news/rea…

Posted by yourleastfavorite on October 15, 2012 at 7:16 PM

My brother is career military and was a staunch Republican as a young man. His hatred for George Bush ("put us in harms way in Iraq for no reason") caused what has been so far a permanent switch to the Dems. Wonder if his feeling is widespread.

Posted by Catastrophe on October 15, 2012 at 7:42 PM

#6

Normally that would be the assessment and the argument would take a different turn.

However, this being SLOG, people continue to hammer home the now discredited argument and to spew venom at various poster credentials.

So much for the Great Educator.

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe

on October 15, 2012 at 9:37 PM

It doesn't surprise me that soldiers don't want to donate to Romney. He has shown no sign that he understands them or cares about them or appreciates the hardships they endure. Add to that his saber-rattling on Iran, and our good people in uniform have every reason to believe that a Romney administration would not be good for them.

Posted by I have always been... east coaster on October 15, 2012 at 9:40 PM

@ 10, in my (very limited) traveling of the more white-rural areas in the US I found that often the most radical older leftists I ran into there where Vietnam vets, ending up in the nasty reality of war, esp at the bottom of the foodchain in blatantly unjust ones, is known to have that effect to a significant part of active service vets.

Posted by dutchie on October 16, 2012 at 5:03 AM

The military loves Obama because he uses them intelligently, and prefers not to put boots on the ground when a drone will do the job. Not to mention how much Ryan's budget destroys benefits for veterans.

Obama has shown more of an ability to kill terrorists and disrupt their operations in the last two years than Bush did in eight. The military has been clamoring for expanded special operations budgets, and Obama finally delivered. Special operations catch terrorists, not broad based military action.

I know everyone here hates the drones, but that is because they are not the ones who will be tasked with invading a country and put their lives on the line if a drone can not be used. Also, they will not be the thousands of civilians who suffer when that invading force arrives.

I have been saying it for a while: this will be essentially the first election where the democrat gets overwhelming support from our nation's servicemen.

Posted by Theodore Gorath on October 16, 2012 at 6:21 AM