Mr. "End All the Wars" has top donors from the military? I wonder how Paultards explain that one.

Don't conservatives typically assert that unions contribute huge sums to democrats? Are union contributions not shown or are conservatives lying?

Whom.

Wow. That's kinda revealing....

@1 maybe they don't want to go fight in Libya/Uganda/wherever is next.

Am I alone in thinking it's funny that Santorum's top two contributors are health care companies? Good thing it's easy for me to avoid Blue Cross/Blue Shield of South Carolina.

@5: we should've been in Uganda 10 years ago. Kony is a psycopath inflicting horror beyond imagining in 3 countries. he needs a drone to put a missile on his tent worse than OBL or Awlaki.

we should never have been in Iraq.

Unions have given $11,325 to Obama this cycle, or roughly 1/30th of a percent of the total amount accounted for to date. It doesn't even show up on the sector bar graph.

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

If you look up outside money not coordinated with the campaign none of them are associated with labor.

Not surprising, really. He hasn't done anything for labor, so why would they give to him?

Financial/insurance/real estate sector donors have given him $3.9 million to date. There's your problem.

I love that GOP candidate Thaddeus McCotter's second-highest contributions come from employees of "GrownAssMen.tv LLC".

Since the military has neither PACs nor "owners", the contributions to Paul are all coming from individuals. And since enlisted people make jack shit, these are almost certainly officers for the most part.

It's almost as though the people who know a thing or two about America going to war think that there might be something to that whole non-interventionist thing...

And apparently Barack Obama is running for president of academia and the internet. Sounds about right.

seeing comcast in obama's list bodes poorly for the future of unfettered internet access.

@10,

Or members of the military like to think of themselves as rugged individualists who would do just fine in a libertarian state, which is definitely my experience when dealing with my sister's three husbands and their friends.

But don't ever inquire as to how well they'd be doing had the U.S. military not been a career option for them.

@7 no one except Rush Limbaugh thinks that on principle the world would be a better place without the LRA. I was just postulating that those who stand to lose the most from such an engagement, coming on the heels of involvement in Libya and the never-ending morass of Afghanistan and in advance of who-knows-where-next, might consider Paul's foreign policy to be sounder than Obama's.

"Thaddeus G. McCotter"?

Is that a real person?

whom

The armed services can give money to political candidates?!?!?!? What? Am I crazy or is that crazy?

I wondered about that at first, too, @17, Then I actually read the text (which I don't often do, I admit). It says, "The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families."

So my guess is that any time the military is listed as a major donor, it's individual members who listed the Army, Navy, etc. as their employer.

"Ron Paul's top three donors are from the Air Force, Army, and Navy". Yeah, and what does that tell you? The military wants out of these wars and now.

"This election cycle so far." Why ignore previous cycles?

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php…

In the last 23 years, Goldman Sachs has given 60% of its donations to Democrats. But Mitt Romney's "running for President of Wall St.?" Really?

http://influenceexplorer.com/industry/se…

From 1989 to 2010 Obama received more donations from the securities and investment industry than any other political candidate.

But remember..."Mitt Romney is running for President of Wall Street." Because facts mean nothing to partisan loyalists.

That explains the dislike of Wimax.

@21, Wall Street's hedging its bets. They already own Obama. They want to own the GOP nominee too.

Since pejoratives are your style, @1, I'll play. Because, you ignorant fuck, the majority of Ron Paul's supporters (Paultards, in your words, nice start to conversation) are anti- preemptive war, anti-war when it involves countries that have no intention of doing anything to us. Also, being anti-war means being anti-drug war. Unlike Perry, who supported sending troops to MEXICO of all palaces, Paul's supporters find at idea abhorrent. Can you get it into your little "ZOMG ALL Paul's donors are warmongers!" brain that nothing is further from the truth? Jeezis, you are proof that shitty liberals exist, and are a disgrace to liberals who actually believe in discourse. I know I'm wasting my time with you, so I just would like to end with a nice warm Fuck You.

@23, I agree with you 100%. Wall St. will do everything it can to support and enable whoever it thinks will win, as will most large corporations. That's why they donate similar amounts to Republicans and Democrats.

I was objecting to the ridiculous notion that Romney is more pro-Wall St. than Obama because Wall St. has given more money to Romney in this current election cycle.

@19

Read harder.

These are bundlers. This is a pretty silly smear Constant. Yeah, we knew Mittens was going to be a whore for his friends and we already knew the largest recipient of Wall St. cash for '08, not to mention very well connected with that group.

Jon Huntsman - Ultimate Fighting Championship $26,500
I find this incredibly amusing.

@ 30 Me too

So .... all of you worrying about this actually think that the candidates with more "friendly" money are better, even if their records show otherwise ... nice ... smart voting strategy there,