Lobbyists own Romney more than he owns himself

It is true that Hillary Clinton received more DC lobbyist money than any candidate in either party during this presidential cycle.  However, over an extended time frame, no one should thank special interests more than Mitt Romney.  Clinton has name recognition, and would still be among the top-tier even if she did not accept lobbyist money.  But as far as Romney is concerned, these interests are responsible for his rise to power, and he will owe them if he wins the presidency:

Republican Mitt Romney ,the wealthiest candidate in the presidential race, earned as much as$15 million in 2006 and early 2007 from the private equity firm he lefteight years ago, helping him expand his personal fortune and bankrollhis campaign.

The extent of Romney's continuing relationship with Boston -based Bain Capital Partner ,which has also supplied him with scores of savvy fundraisers andwell-heeled donors, was detailed in a financial disclosure report filedyesterday with the Office of Government Ethics. The report revealed theholdings of Romney's blind trust and provided the most completeaccounting of his wealth, estimated at between $190 million and $250million.

The filing, which listed 47 pages of investments spanning the globe,estimated that Romney earned between $17 million and $69 million lastyear.

According to the campaign finance disclosure site Open Secrets, Mitt Romney has failed to disclose where 7.2% of his money originated from -- that's $2,348,704 of possibly dirty money.  In addition, 20% of all Romney's campaign money came from his own bank account -- $6.5 million in the second quarter alone. 

Romney was also out-raised by Giuliani $15 million to $14 million that quarter.  This guy is the Republican front-runner, yet average Americans are not donating to his campaign at the same ratio as other GOP candidates. 

Romney's donations in Massachusetts, his home state, fell by 69% in the second quarter.  He only has 80,000 donors, which is less than one-third what Barack Obama has.

Mitt Romney will owe those that gave him funding, and they will do anything to see that he gets in.  He is the anti-populist candidate, if you are looking for one.

Comments

[granny]

Shows what money can buy : ELECTIONS.

Whether or not Fred Thompson steps in, the end game will be the same.

Perhaps we should all be reading the book FOOLED AGAIN, by Mark Crispin Miller;

Reviewed in Amazon as:

"a riveting, well documented account of a pathological criminal enterprise engaged in a massive coast-to-coast scheme to disenfranchise and defraud the American public of their most cherished and fundamental right -- the right to elect our own government. A must-read for anyone who cares about the future of our representative democracy."

[Ryan]

So on one hand Romney is more in the pocket of "lobbyists" (aka his former investment firm) than Hillary Clinton; but on the other hand, 20% of his campaign is financed out of his own pocket and he raised less than Giuliani last quarter. So if he raised less money, a significant portion of which is from his own bank account, wouldn't that mean that he's actually less in the pocket of lobbyists than other candidates?

[Chief Editor: Todd]

What it clearly shows, Ryan, is that Romney's money is coming from himself, lobbyists and large corporations. Do you admit that is more dangerous for democracy than if most of the money came from small donors?

Granny, you're right, it's all about money. Look at the polls in Iowa vs national polls. Nationwide, Romney is behind Giuliani and Thompson. In Iowa, Romney leads, mainly because he has spent exponentially more than the other candidates.

[Ryan]

I don't think it matters, actually. I think you're showing very little faith in the intelligence and agency of the American people. It really doesn't matter where he gets his money (where anyone gets their money), in the end, as long as it's legal. Come election day, the people will either vote for him, or they won't. It won't matter how much he spends on his campaign or where he got the money.

If you remember, Steve Forbes spent a fair share of his own personal wealth on his campaign too, and he didn't get anywhere. The truth is that every candidate on both sides might be beholden to special interests and lobbyists--from whom they all accept donations--so singling Romney out is kind of dishonest, I think.

[George]

Ryan, You speak as if people know what they are doing when they vote. They don't. If Romney does get elected, when he gets into office he will be owned by the same people who own GWB - the top 1% of the top 1%.

If Romney were financed by real people it would be more encouraging - that's how i see it.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

Ryan, it's not dishonest. There is a huge difference between Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. Mike Huckabee earned his second place finish in Ames. Romney bought first place. And no, I am not singling Romney out. I have been even more critical of Hillary Clinton for being the number one lobbyist-funded presidential candidate of either party.

It DOES matter who donates to campaigns. If you think politicians stick their neck out for people like you and me, then fine. Believe that. But, if you think politicians are corrupt, and lobbyists have disproportionate influence on legislation, then people like Tom DeLay, William Jefferson, Duke Cunningham, Ted Stevens, John Murtha, and -- yes -- Mitt Romney are the reasons why.

Neither Barack Obama, John Edwards nor Dennis Kucinich have taken a single dime this entire campaign season from currently-registered lobbyists. So when they say they will stand up for me, I whole-heartedly believe them because they aren't indebted to anyone but the hundreds of thousands of dollars that small donors gave them. You sure can't say the same thing about Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, Joe Biden, Rudolph Giuliani and most of the other '08 nominees.

[Ryan]

Fair enough. At least your are applying the same standard to all candidates, so I'll give you props for not being completely one-sided.

I have to disagree with your comparison of Mitt Romney to George W. Bush. Bush was already owned long before he even ran for president. Romney has no such affiliations, or at least there is no evidence of such. Business relationships with certain groups don't necessarily equate to "ownership."

I also have to disagree that Romney bought first in the straw pole. That suggests that anyone who spends enough money will win. If that's true, the problems in this country are much deeper than can be corrected by any electoral process and the only alternative left is revolution.

Personally, I'd rather see someone spend his own money to boost his name recognition than take it even from individual donors, or eliminate campaign spending/fund-raising all together and just give every candidate exactly equal time on public airwaves. That's not going to happen. So we're left to try to elect officials who we feel we can trust. I find far less objectionable with Romney than any others.

Good conversation, though.

[Michel]

Allow me to be off topic...

Here's a clip I just saw on CBC. Hilarious!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSUKgFWFGGI

[Chief Editor: Todd]

Michel, that video was hilarious!! Thanks for the link. I'll put it in the Nightowl Clips tonight.

Ryan, thanks for your take. I really respect your opinion. I never said candidates with the most money will definitely win the entire general election. They are more likely to though. I do think, specifically pertaining to the vote in Ames last weekend, that Romney would not have finished first had he and Huckabee spent the exact same amount of money. Why is Romney ahead in Iowa, but not in the national polls?

And the issue is not whether the candidates have money, but where the money came from. Does it come from individuals, or does it come from Wall Street firms and K-Street lobbyists? And this isn't class warfare. Nothing wrong with a rich person donating to a campaign. That's great. But Romney's donations are so unevenly bundled from special interests, as are Hillary Clinton's.

What we need is not a revolution. We have all the pieces of the puzzle right in front of us, we just never put the puzzle together. Ethics reform, campaign finance reform and bundling laws will work great wonders in fixing the problem over time. This isn't about being liberal or conservative. It is a question of whether you want a democratic republic or a country-club-like republic that only benefits only certain groups of people.

There is no reason why a hard-working family of four in Henderson, NV shouldn't have the exact same amount of influence on their government as a Dow Jones 30 owner living in Southampton.

[Ryan]

Well said, Todd. I can't disagree on the whole.

I still disagree on the straw poll conclusion. Romney's ahead in Iowa because the people have gotten to know him there. He has spent significant time (and yes, money) there. When people get to see Romney for real, and not the caricature that is being painted of him in much of the news media and liberal blogs, they can't help but recognize a true leader. Of course, that's my opinion, but Iowa seems to agree, as does every state in which he has spent significant time campaigning. He hasn't even begun a national campaign yet. Time will tell if that proves to be a mistake or not.

I guess in that sense, having more money to spend than your opponents will certainly help.

The big names like Giuliani and Thompson don't even have to work very hard to be recognized. That's already done. People think they know them already. Romney has a much bigger job on that front. So don't count him out yet. Wait until the public starts really paying attention in about March. Then we'll know really quick.

I have to say, it's refreshing to be able to converse with those of opposing views without getting flamed as a "troll" or "Bush lover" or "Romneybot" or any of the other names I've been branded with lately. Thanks for that. :)

[Chief Editor: Todd]

lol Don't worry, Ryan. As owner and founder of this blog, I don't appreciate name calling. Whether they be liberal or conservative, people that resort to ad-hominem attacks only prove they are good at losing arguments. So you will always be welcome here. Then again, it isn't really about winning or losing arguments. It's about discussing and conversing with people.

Part of the reason why this country is so divided is because of the media. Some think the media is just liberal, while some on my side think the media is conservative. The way I view it, news is just corporate driven. It divides people, and most of the time it is commentary, not news. We're not going to save health care, end the war in Iraq, protect our borders or balance the budget until people on both sides can start working with another. And it's not going to happen until we flush dirty money out of the system, and make sure our politicians are working for us, not just their friends.

And no, I'm not counting out Romney at all. He has a great shot. If he wins Iowa, which he would today, that would give him a media bounce heading into New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. But if he does not win Iowa, I don't think he has much of a chance -- same case with both Edwards and Obama. Iowa is crucial for them.