MyDD :: Obama's OpenSecrets Problem

Obama's OpenSecrets Problem

by Edgar08, Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 03:35:02 PM EST

All this talk about Donations and Lobbyists has prompted me to become well acquainted with one of the best tools out there for tracking Money in Politics.

www.OpenSecrets.org

Here is some Methodology on one of the ways they keep track of the Candidates and the Money being Donated to them:

QUALITY OF DISCLOSURE

FULL DISCLOSURE: Includes full name and occupation / employer

INCOMPLETE DISCLOSURE: Occupation listed gives no indication what the person does for a living. Examples of unacceptably vague disclosures are such "occupations" as "businessman," "entrepreneur," "self-employed," and "executive".

NO DISCLOSURE: No information about the donor's employer and / or occupation was listed.

HOW TO READ THIS CHART: Federal election laws require that all contributions of $200 or more be itemized, with the donor's name, address, occupation and employer fully disclosed. Most members of Congress fully identify the great majority of their donors' occupations and employers -- an important point, if voters are to see the economic interests giving to their representative's campaign.

METHODOLOGY: The numbers on this page are calculated from contributions of $200 or more from individuals, as reported by the candidates to the Federal Election Commission. PAC dollars are not included.

Now Lets Look at the Three Candidates:

Barack Obama

Hillary Clinton

John Edwards

30% of Barack Obama's Donations are not yet disclosed. My guess is there is a good reason for that. They rely on a method of Fundraising that is probably the most difficult to keep track of, the Internet. Although seeing as though OpenSecrets are only tracking Donations $200.00 and higher in their Methodology the possibility is that it's all small dollar Donations can't be established.

11% of Clinton's Donations are not yet disclosed.

10% of Edwards' Donations are not yet disclosed.

If there is a good Explanation for Obama's 30% Non-Disclosure rate on OpenSecrets.org, (My best guess is they have a Database that simply has not yet been transmitted to the proper Authorities and it will be soon), I suspect it will be offered below and eventually OpenSecrets.org will be updated accordingly.

Tags: Barack Obama, OpenSecrets.org (all tags)

Permalink :: 23 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Obama's OpenSecrets Problem (none / 0)

Maybe Hillary's 11% are all crooks too...You'd have a point if Hillary had 0% undisclosed but they all have people that refuses to disclose their info for whatever reason , so no big deal.

by JaeHood on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 03:41:21 PM EST

Re: Obama's OpenSecrets Problem (none / 0)

she is low because lobbyists have to disclose on a regular basis... I'm waiting for Obama to point out he raised more than her without lobbyists dollars - where would she be without them?

Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.

by CardBoard on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 03:59:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I've looked at all these things on (3.00 / 1)

opensecrets.

Edwards is in very good shape (although I still expect the media to smear him)...

Kucinich has one of the worst disclosure levels!!

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 03:41:32 PM EST

The answer (3.00 / 1)

if you did research you wouldn't have to start a diary titled "Obama's opensecrets" problem.

The reason obama has a 30 percent figure is that the campaign does not need to disclose the names of people who donate less than $250 but they still must record who gave them that money so that if and when a person does exceed $250 dollars the campaign can disclose the contribution.

Because Obama's campaign is built on small donors, he has about 9 million dollars total from people who have given less than $250. When an individual breaks the $250 figure they will be disclosed.

Thanks. I wish you wouldn't write a diary implying bad faith before researching what it is you write about.

by dpg220 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 04:55:48 PM EST

The Methodology (none / 0)

Above says that only $200+ Donations are tracked in the Disclosure Chart.

by Edgar08 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 05:02:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Methodology (none / 0)

And yet you chose a title that implied controversey.

Why'd you do that?

by AdamSmithsHand on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 05:12:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh Man (none / 0)

Someone on a Blog chose a title that implies controversy?

They're tracking Donations that Obama should have the requisite information on. I'm not saying he doesn't have the information, but it certainly hasn't been filed yet.

I think it's something that should be pointed out.

You want to see an inflammatory title:

What Are You Hiding Barack Obama?

That would have been inflammatory.

by Edgar08 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 05:22:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh Man (none / 0)

Ah. So the fact that you can come up with a more inflammatory title proves your wasn't?

Absurd.

by AdamSmithsHand on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 05:30:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Because (none / 0)

It appears to me as if OpenSecrets is tracking Donations of $200 or more on their Disclosure Methodology.

by Edgar08 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 05:34:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you agree with this Statement (none / 0)

Of Contributions (aggregate or otherwise) $200.00 or more, 30% of those Contributions to Barack Obama are still undisclosed.

That's how I read their Methodology. That's why I went to great care to post that Methogology at the top of the Post.

by Edgar08 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 05:45:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

right (none / 0)

that's true. But if a person donates a few times and it adds up to more than 200 than it must be reported (for obvious reasons).

This Obama has a lot of people who are not listed on the disclosure chart because they have given under 200. The total amount of money of all these donors is the missing 30 percent you found.

by dpg220 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 05:06:47 PM EST

Are you saying (none / 0)

That someone can donate 85 dollars three times and they never have to disclose any info about themselves?

by Edgar08 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 05:23:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Tell Me a Better Title (none / 0)

I'll change it.

by Edgar08 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 05:36:34 PM EST

Nice Try (none / 0)

Be Serious.

by Edgar08 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 05:47:16 PM EST

Re: Nice Try (3.00 / 1)

Simply Re-stating Some Info About a Well-Known Website

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell

by This Machine Kills Fascists on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 06:29:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Lobbyist have been interviewed (3.00 / 1)

And said that the Obama camp has called them and come right out and said that they couldn't take a check from them, but they could take a check from their wife.

Now if I were a lobbyist, I could easily deposit money into my wifes seperate account, my two daughters, my mother's and write 4 max checks.

Its all a smoke screen people.

by dpANDREWS on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 06:04:19 PM EST

Re: Lobbyist have been interviewed (none / 0)

and we should believe them .... why?

by JoeCoaster on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 06:08:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'd expect to see (none / 0)

Some Documentation on that.

I know the Obama Campaign has taken a substantial amount of money from the wives of Lobbyists. But I do not like hearsay.

Can you back up your statement above?

by Edgar08 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 06:10:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Check out this well written piece (3.00 / 1)

Steve Rhodes sums it up well writing for the Beachwood reporter. Before you say the what(?), just read it and see that he sources, quotes from and links to 'The Hill', 'The NY Times', 'The LA Times', etc. Surely not even the looniest of Obamamaniacs can beleive they are all involved in a grand plot to thwart Obama.

What we learn is thus:

From 'The Hill':

""Two lobbyists who are supporting another candidate and spoke to The Hill on condition of anonymity said that Obama's campaign contacted them asking to be put in touch with their networks of business clients and acquaintances.

"One of the lobbyists, who supports Clinton, said that Shomik Dutta, a fundraiser for Obama's campaign, called to ask if the lobbyist's wife would be interested in making a political contribution.

"'I was quite taken aback,' he said. 'He was very direct in saying that you're a lobbyist and we don't want contributions from lobbyists. But your wife can contribute and we like your network.'""

by dpANDREWS on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 06:18:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Check out this well written piece (3.00 / 1)

The link .... there is much more to learn about Obama and his smokescreen.

http://www.beachwoodreporter.com/politic s/obamas_money_machine.php

The Obama the Obamamaniacs are in love with is a carefully crafted and carefully scripted illusion.

by dpANDREWS on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 06:20:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I Wish the Source On That (none / 0)

Wasn't so Compromised by his support for Clinton.

I remember when a bunch of Obama supporters were giving Interviews about calls they thought was Push Polling from the Clinton Campaign. Obama supporters outraged at the Clinton Campaign.

Clinton supporters talking about Phone calls they received from the Obama campaign.

Who Knew?

Thanks for the info though.

by Edgar08 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 06:27:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Click your heels together three times and ... (none / 0)

Obama will be in the lead.

by dpANDREWS on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 09:39:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's OpenSecrets Problem (none / 0)

Obama is a sham. He is as dirty as the rest. He is worse. Clinton says she'll take the money and does. Obama says he won't and then he takes it in the backdoor.

Check out the quotes and links to the 'The Hill' and the 'NY Times'. Pretty damning. Not to mention the stuff from the 'LA Times.'

http://www.beachwoodreporter.com/politic s/obamas_money_machine.php

by dpANDREWS on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 06:24:59 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.