...the best government money can buy!

Given his decision not to accept public financing, Mr. Obama is counting on his bundlers to help him raise $300 million for his general-election campaign and another $180 million for the Democratic National Committee.

An analysis of campaign finance records shows that about two-thirds of his bundlers are concentrated in four major industries: law, securities and investments, real estate and entertainment. Lawyers make up the largest group, numbering roughly 130, with many of them working for firms that also have lobbying arms. At least 100 Obama bundlers are top executives or brokers from investment businesses: nearly two dozen work for financial titans like Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs or Citigroup. About 40 others come from the real estate industry.

The biggest fund-raisers include people like Julius Genachowski, a former senior official at the Federal Communications Commission and a technology executive who is new to political fund-raising; Robert Wolf, president and chief operating officer of UBS Investment Bank; James A. Torrey, a New York hedge-fund investor; and Charles H. Rivkin, chief executive of an animation studio in Los Angeles.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/us/

No, they are the party in power. It's called a bribe in any other context.

China is holding a lot of our debt. They should deal with Wall Street and Congress the way they deal with domestic economic criminals.

Someone has to stand up for America and our government is just stealing and looting with no shame or fear because there is no real government in the United States, just two pirate cliques flying the Jolly Roger.

"WHAT'S IN YOUR WALLET?"

Politicians of both parties have been beholden to moneyed interests from the beginning of time. It's just become more pronounced as the country has moved to the right over the last couple of decades.

under "Ideology/Single Issue." Hi, mom!

The issue was restoring the rule of law and competent, equitable government. We'll see.

The unfortunate fact of the matter is that whoever is in power is going to be beholding to Wall Street because so much of our economy is now imaginary. Based on promises (credit) and assumptions (speculation, including mortgage and insurance backed securities). If the American economy still hinged on actual material goods or commodities, the powers that be would be kowtowing to manufacturing and farming interests. As it stands, perception is everything and the people who can do the most damage when their worldview is disrupted are those on Wall Street.

Maybe there is an historical perspective in the numbers too. When the Democrats are in power, the stock market performs better than it does under the Republicans.

That Jesse Unruh was right and money is the mother's milk of politics!

On the other hand, Unruh also said "If you can’t eat their food, drink their booze, screw their hookers and still vote against them the next morning, you don’t belong in politics."

John Dewey said that "politics is the shadow cast by business". We'd be rather foolish to imagine that the finance industry would not have wormed its way into both parties as deeply and influentially as possible (quite like other powerful lobbies in Washington).

But to posit the two parties as equivalent in their subservience to Wall Streets wishes and goals is a signal error. The present ramping up of campaigns to forestall or eviscerate medical reform, labor reform and financial regulatory reform weren't evident during the last eight years because the political philosophy and the real policy goals of the previous administration were different from that of the present administration.

As Greg Sargent at the Plum Line notes this morning, the RNC has released an ad which includes quotes from left and center-left commentators who (in context or out of context) express doubts about Obama's distance from Wall Street interests. This ad is not targeted to a conservative base. It is targeted to those on the left and the center-left. The strategy is, transparently, to foment discord and doubt on the left/center-left as to whether Obama is really a progressive of the sort we've hoped.

Your equivalence above, quite regardless of your intentions, functions in tandem with the meme which RNC marketing is now pushing.

Don't you feel represented? I mean, you have just as much right as anyone else to "speak." Wait, you mean you don't have any money?

I guess some people are more equal than others.

Can we PLEASE have publicly-funded campaigns? Please?

That only one party is the party of Wall Street.

Both parties are so deep in Wall Street's pockets that it's a sad sad thing.

We need someone with Andrew Jackson's fire in there right now. This isn't cutting it.

Since 1900 the stock market has done better under Democrats than under Republicans. A recent book, Unequal Democracy, explains it all in great detail.

Most market crashes since 1900 have occured during Republican administrations: 1929 Hoover, 1987 Reagan, 2008 Bush. The main exception was the Dot-Com bubble under Clinton.

Despite what the Chamber of Commerce might say, the economy does better under Democrats than under Republicans. Most brokers, as individuals, understand this. And thier campaign contributions reflect this.

Screw you. I gave money to Obama, not a lot, and millions more just like me as well, he got most of his money from people like me. There are always fat cats that give. In this case, you insult me and millions of people just like me when you completely ignore our contribution. You are a douche.

...when the donations to BOTH parties jumps as much as it did in one year, particularly in a year when these companies are making the news so much.

Something needs to be fixed here.

There can be no change to the current problems with goverment until it becomes illegal for any company, or group, to donate to a campaign. I would much rather see all campaigning paid by taxes and media donated time than the current system. Heck, while I'm dreaming, I'd also like to see an end to political advertising and let the voters ONLY rely on actual forensic debates, no public speeches unless they are met with the opponents' (or representatives') debate. It might be more boring, but certainly more informative.