As Calculated By Center For Public Integrity
Published on January 23, 2004 By Wahkonta Anathema In Politics
Information for those watching Democratic process and rise of Sen. John Kerry campaign.
ARTICLE BEGINS

Kerry's Top Ten Contributors
1-20-4


Here is the money behind the new top dog in the Democratic dog pound, John Kerry's Top Ten Career Patrons calculated by the Center for Public Integrity, Washington.

1. Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo PC, Boston $223,046

2. Fleet Boston Financial Corp., Boston $172,387

3. AOL Time Warner Inc., New York $134,960

4. Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston $123,258

5. Hill, Holiday, Connors, Cosmopulos Inc., Boston $119,300

6. Harvard University $108,700

7. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, NY $105,150

8. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP, Minneapolis $103,450

9. Goldman Sachs Group Inc., NY $100,000

10. Piper Rudnick, Baltimore $92,300

*Sen. John Kerry also created a soft money committee (Citizen Soldier Fund), which raised approximately $1.35 million in unregulated donations and spent $147,000 in Iowa during the last two years. "The real powers that be in this country are not on any ballot. And they are accountable to no one. The bottom line is that the American people have a right to know who is underwriting their presidential candidates, and their democracy."

--From the first ever guest blog on GregPalast.com by Charles Lewis, founder of the Center for Public Integrity. Lewis has just released "The Buying of the President 2004." In 2000 the guy with the least votes -- but the most money -- won, making the contest an auction, not an election. Lewis tells you who the winning bidders are in this race, beginning with the temporary resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. --Greg Palast

And now, from Charles Lewis:

Our electoral process is broken, with about half or more of America's eligible voters not voting in every federal election cycle. After the Florida recount debacle, in which the likes of Fidel Castro and Robert Mugabe lectured us on how to conduct democratic elections, we still do not have a single, standardized system of voting throughout the nation. The campaign process has become so expensive that it limits the talent pool available today to only millionaires or those willing and able to raise substantial sums of cash from wealthy and powerful interests with business before the government. Forty members of the current U.S. Senate are millionaires; less than one percent of the American people are millionaires. And big money mixed with irregular and high-tech redistricting help explain why the incumbent reelection rate in the House of Representatives the past three elections has been more than 98 percent. These are the kind of numbers we expect to see in countries like North Korea or China, not the United States.

Despite campaign finance reform, 2004 already is and will ultimately be the most expensive election in U.S. history. President George W. Bush has shattered his own astounding 1999 fundraising record and collected $130 million in 2003 - that's more than half a million dollars a day - and his campaign has $99 million in cash on hand with no major Republican primary challenger. Bush's official third quarter cash on hand number of $73 million was more than all of the major Democratic candidates and all of the Democratic national party committees combined ($54 million) through September!

There is an especially compelling reason for candidates to make this headlong rush for cash. As we mentioned in the 1996 and 2000 editions of The Buying of the President, the central, most salient, single fact about the White House selection process-a discovery first made by Republican political fundraising consultant Stan Huckaby-is that in every presidential election since 1976, the candidate who has raised the most money at the end of the year preceding the election, and been eligible for federal matching funds, has become his party's nominee for the general election. At midnight on December 31st, it was Carter and Ford who had amassed the most campaign cash in 1975, Carter and Reagan in 1979, Mondale and Reagan in 1983, Dukakis and G.H.W. Bush in 1987, Clinton and Bush in 1991, Clinton and Dole in 1995 and Gore and G.W. Bush in 1999.

For Lewis' complete web log, go to www.GregPalast.com
ARTICLE ENDS Feel free to comment or e-mail: wahkonta@graffiti.net

Comments
on Jan 25, 2004
If you think Kerry's campaign trail leaves you shivering - you should look at Bush's backers.

Besides; it really shows how pathetic both parties are: Democrats seemingly want to change and work for the middle class, but can't because they have their hands tied behind their backs due to needing funding like this to get elected; Republicans are outright pro-corporate to the extreme (and have far more big corporate money backing them of course) and care nothing about profit margins for the largest of corporations. Then Republicans pretend to care and try to "reform" Medicare or other programs when they really are trying to end them...

Really sickening if you think about it.

The only way politics in this country is ever going to make a BIG change is when we have publicly financed elections with free media air time given to the candidates, and very limited private special interests are allowed to donate to any campaign.

But don't count on that happening anytime soon. the McCain-Feingold reform act was barely even touching the surface and leaves all kinds of loopholes open. It was amazing that much at least passed, however!

Again, just sickening how things run.
on Jan 25, 2004
Correction: I meant to say Republicans care about nothing BUT profit margins for the largest of corporations.
on Jan 25, 2004
Thanks for the comment. I am also aware that Kerry is a fellow bonesman with Bush from his days at Yale. He admits he is member with Bush but refuses to discuss the matter further because it is a secret and he cannot discuss it. This clearly indicates he will not do anything to betray his relationship with fraternal brother Bush.
How any Democrat can be falling for what is occuring from the 'controlled media' is beyond me. They are blatantly slandering Dean at every discussion, alleging he is mentally unable to control himself, given to emotional fits, etc. They also say he is 'losing' support, when he is second and he finished third in Iowa. It is how they minimize his good showing, by constantly representing it is 'not as good' or less than expected'. Meanwhile this same media is all for Kerry, whether on Fox (republican network) or CNN(Democratic counterpart), and it makes it clear they have met and the powers that be have decided the best way to keep things as they are is to have Bush vs. Kerry in election. That way there will be no change in policy and money flow no matter which frat brother wins.
I am not the first to predict Kerry is the nominee and it is a done deal, other sites of researchers coming forth with documentationof the relationship and funding sources before now. It is all in the reporting and clear to objective viewers. I've seen the same techniques used against Buchanon, Perot, Jackson, Brown. First they marginilaize the supporters of the Candidate, question his mental health, which is incapable of being proven or dis-proven and makes one appear ill to support. Then they say anyone who supports him is "a uninformed' or "unintelligent", etc. all labels to make anyone who speaks for the Candidate questionable as well. It silences the mass of support and thus the pre-sel;ected Candidate is chosen as the 'controlled-media' tells us.
I am going to put up some technique information on how the media is manipulating opinion by such means when I can get to it. You can see how much the Iowa caucuses mean by reviewing my blog on the night of the caucus. There are violations of procedure in the two Counties I observed, and anyone who views the tapes made by C-Span on that night can prove it easily. Both Adair and Dubugue Counties were in violation just from the little I saw. How these gray haired farmers wives speak or represent the Democratic Party views is an insult to intelligent voters and laughable to say these Iowans are informed at all in speaking for all Democrats.
on Jan 25, 2004

The difference is that Democrats decry campaign finance issues while being up to their necks with it.

Republicans believe (and I agree) that individuals should be able to contribute as much as they want. It is corporations I have a problem with (and particularly colleges and other institutions that should not be getting involved in this kind of thing).

on Feb 05, 2004
This blog is listed as the top referral for today on the front page, with a total of 25. Yet, when I click on it there it says the article does not exist. If you looked for it in another place and did not find it please let me know. I will go back and post it again as I think the Democratic voters should know of this data, and I won't accept anyone deleting it or hiding it. It may a glitch created by the change-over to a new style, but I don't want any people tampering with my posts to squelch facts. Since I am also having a apparent problem posting articles as of today, anyone reading this please feel free to click on the link, copy the article, and post it up again in the forums for others to see. We' won't be stopped from presenting facts to the people. If you too are experiencing difficulty, please e-mail me at: wahkonta@graffiti.net. Also Brads e-mail is: bwardell@stardock.com. He can address your posting problems. I trust Brad and he won't let people censor, so tell him and don't just quit posting and assume that he does. This may all just be a glitch in the change-over.
on Feb 06, 2004
Are there no limits on funding in US elections?
Does the federal government actually match funds? How much? What a waste of tax payers money!!!

Many other democracies have strick limits on how much a candidate can spend (or have spent on them). Soem countries even have completely centralised funding so that all candidates spend equal amounts.

Paul.
on Feb 06, 2004
Solitair: 'Frog Boy' makes the point. "It is corporations I have a problem with (and particularly colleges and other institutions that should not be getting involved in this kind of thing).
I do not side with Democrats as to limitations as a Capitalist society should have such freedom to raise money. The fed matching funds is part of what Candidates such as Kerry and Bush use to rig the election for them and deprive us of our own tax dollars against our wishes. This should be outlawed. I have never understood why anyone would support such a person. By definition he is a gold-digger, profiteer, and clearly part of the problem.
When I see who has the most money from Corps. I automatically dismiss that Candidate as one I would support. In a free country though, people have the right to support the money-grubbers, and consistently do. I do not have the right to take that from the majority of Americans but only put forth my position and try to influence a few each election cycle. We make progress, but at not a fast-enough rate to stop the NWO from enslaving us. Thus the spectre is that the Demcratic process is not how to retain our freedoms.
Finally, I am fully opposed to an artificial 'entity' participating in the election in any way. No corporate contribution should be allowed. If you may not vote in an election, you have no say in an election. That is pure and simple, easy to understand, and it exists only because men like Kerry and Bush have rigged the process and perpetuate this clearly intrusive, nullifying and un-accountable action by Corporations which have appropriated our free elections.
Blog ON.
on Mar 02, 2004
YES but anyone giving over $5,000 should be listed after every political AD. If polititions are going to owe favors to people or corps. we should know who. That will tell us where his intrests lie.
on Mar 11, 2004
I'm pretty sure in order to take the Federal matching funds there are limitations. I'm also pretty sure Bush didn't accept the funds because of the limitations. I'm not sure about Kerry.
on Mar 11, 2004
I'm pretty sure in order to take the Federal matching funds there are limitations. I'm also pretty sure Bush didn't accept the funds because of the limitations. I'm not sure about Kerry.


Neither accepted funds for the primary. Both will accept the federal funds for the general election, but those don't become available until after the party conventions at the end of hte summer.
on Apr 22, 2004
There have been a couple replies to this since last i visitied it. Thank you for them, don't know the specifics of what Kerry has done since this was put up, or if these numbers or rankings have changed. Hope this keeps the fact Kerry is no different than Bush in this regard in people's mind. You know Republicrat A or Republicrat B; frat brother A or frat brother B, what's the dif?