The Presidential Inauguration, Brought to You by the Few, the Wealthy

The Presidential Inauguration, Brought to You by the Few, the Wealthy
Obama Bans Corporate Funding, But Nearly 80 Percent of Contributions Have Been Raised by 211 Wealthy Donors, Many From Wall Street

Quote :

WASHINGTON, D.C. - President-elect Barack Obama has banned corporate and lobbyist funding for his historic inauguration, but that has not kept special interests from picking up the tab, according to a Public Citizen analysis. Nearly 80 percent of the $35.3 million raised to date by the Presidential Inaugural Committee has come from just 211 individual "bundlers."

"Bundlers" are well-connected fundraisers, frequently corporate executives, who collect checks from colleagues or other associates, deliver them to a fundraising committee and receive credit for raising the money. Obama has voluntarily banned direct contributions for his inaugural committee from corporations, lobbyists, political action committees and unions. But the committee is accepting individual contributions of up to $50,000 and bundled amounts of up to $300,000....

...Many prominent Wall Street executives have bundled large amounts for the inauguration, including:

• Louis Susman, vice chairman of Citigroup Corporate and Investment Banking and managing director, vice chairman of investment banking, Citigroup ($300,000);

• Mark Gilbert, senior executive, Lehman Brothers ($185,000);

• Robert Wolf, chairman and CEO, UBS Americas ($100,000);

• Jennifer Scully, vice president, private wealth management, Goldman Sachs ($100,000);

• Bruce Heyman, managing director of the Private Wealth Management Group, Midwest region, Goldman Sachs ($50,000);

• Kobi Brinson, senior vice president and assistant general counsel, Wachovia ($35,000)

"It’s no wonder that Wall Street is pouring so much money into this inauguration," said David Arkush, director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division. "The executive branch has given bailouts worth trillions of dollars to Wall Street firms and is considering trillions more. Wall Street has a lot at stake."

Small donors do not appear to be much of a factor in the inaugural fundraising. Of the 5,632 reported contributions to the inaugural committee, only 113 were "small" contributions of $200. The Presidential Inauguration Committee is not disclosing donations below that threshold.....

Glad to see another example of where our bailout money is going to...

I agree. This is ridiculous!

What a total waste of so much money period for a 1 minute oath?

It is becoming painfully obvious that this is not a budget conscience administration. :titanic:

Remember, it's the second coming of the Messiah. Can we put a price on that?

Talk about irony. Did you know that Obama will come riding into town on the Beast? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/06/obama-gets-new-presidential-limo/

Mirage wrote:

I agree. This is ridiculous!

What a total waste of so much money period for a 1 minute oath?

It is becoming painfully obvious that this is not a budget conscience administration. :titanic:

I agree Mirage but this is an historical event. I am still going to wait and see what this President can do for this country before I count him as a budget unconscience administration.

I believe if Hillary had been elected or even Palin as a Vice President, the same kind of celebrations would be going on.

In a word, why? I wouldn't be willing to pay $160 mil if it were George Washington himself. This really sets a bad example right from the start given the state of the country.

It's not like you won't have a better seat watching the thing on TV. It's about as silly as showing up in Tampa for the Superbowl to sit in the parking lot to eat outdoor grilling during the game. Yea, I know some people enjoy doing that sort of thing. OTOH it's their own money, not mine.

Why? Because that's what American's have always done.

I'm sure the people of Wasington D.C. are getting a big boost to their economy because of all this.

Does O'Bama actually have any say on what is going on in D.C where this celebration is concerned? Could he have stopped all of this? I'm just wondering.

It's his inauguration committee so I would think so...

party42 wrote:

Does O'Bama actually have any say on what is going on in D.C where this celebration is concerned? Could he have stopped all of this? I'm just wondering.

O'Bama? He's Irish now?

ML88 wrote:

party42 wrote:

Does O'Bama actually have any say on what is going on in D.C where this celebration is concerned? Could he have stopped all of this? I'm just wondering.

O'Bama? He's Irish now?

Spelling nazi, huh? Very funny.

Ohhmama wrote:

It's his inauguration committee so I would think so...

I don't think he has say over all that is going on in D.C. and this celebration. That's not to say his committee's haven't planned a lot of it.

Maybe this is an expensive celebration but at the same time it is uplifting to a lot of people at a time when so many need something to give them hope.

The problem I have with this, is once again the connected and wealthy seem to be able to have the contact with this and any administration. What the hell happened to the change thing? Do I think he will be a good President, I do and hope he will, but his message seems to be clouded with his actions.

Face wrote:

... his message seems to be clouded with his actions.

Shhh!
Don't say that within earshot of those who voted for him.

Well as I have said, I may not have voted for the man, but I am willing to give him a chance, just as I was for GWB, I just hope he won't be all partisian and so dividing. On the news last night I did hear that above 70% of Americans are optomistic for the future.

Face wrote:

Well as I have said, I may not have voted for the man, but I am willing to give him a chance, just as I was for GWB, I just hope he won't be all partisian and so dividing. On the news last night I did hear that above 70% of Americans are optomistic for the future.

70% ? That's great to hear. It will be interesting to see what the stock market does over the next few weeks.

party42 wrote:

Why? Because that's what American's have always done.

I'm sure the people of Wasington D.C. are getting a big boost to their economy because of all this.

Does O'Bama actually have any say on what is going on in D.C where this celebration is concerned? Could he have stopped all of this? I'm just wondering.

I think everybody else tries to keep it under $50 mil, not $150 mil+++.

Obama's staff had a lot of say. As for the tourism angle I think that argument is almost always overblown.

Mirage wrote:

party42 wrote:

Why? Because that's what American's have always done.

I'm sure the people of Wasington D.C. are getting a big boost to their economy because of all this.

Does O'Bama actually have any say on what is going on in D.C where this celebration is concerned? Could he have stopped all of this? I'm just wondering.

I think everybody else tries to keep it under $50 mil, not $150 mil+++.

Obama's staff had a lot of say. As for the tourism angle I think that argument is almost always overblown.

Read the article I posted. Bush's cost $157,000,000. Everyone seems to want to forget about the cost of security when they are talking about how expensive this ignauguration was.

If the tourism is so overblown as you say then why would Mayor Daley want the olympics to come to Chicago if it weren't for the money it would bring to the city? I realize the olympics would be in town longer but hey, people still spent money today in D.C. as well as the last few days.

Face wrote:

Well as I have said, I may not have voted for the man, but I am willing to give him a chance, just as I was for GWB, I just hope he won't be all partisian and so dividing. On the news last night I did hear that above 70% of Americans are optomistic for the future.

Wow, Face. You didn't vote for Barack?

party42 wrote:

Mirage wrote:

party42 wrote:

Why? Because that's what American's have always done.

I'm sure the people of Wasington D.C. are getting a big boost to their economy because of all this.

Does O'Bama actually have any say on what is going on in D.C where this celebration is concerned? Could he have stopped all of this? I'm just wondering.

I think everybody else tries to keep it under $50 mil, not $150 mil+++.

Obama's staff had a lot of say. As for the tourism angle I think that argument is almost always overblown.

Read the article I posted. Bush's cost $157,000,000. Everyone seems to want to forget about the cost of security when they are talking about how expensive this ignauguration was.

If the tourism is so overblown as you say then why would Mayor Daley want the olympics to come to Chicago if it weren't for the money it would bring to the city? I realize the olympics would be in town longer but hey, people still spent money today in D.C. as well as the last few days.

BIG difference between a week long event and a 1 minute swearing in, or even call it half a day. It's still a day trip for many. As for Daley or any mayor wanting the Olympics it's something to boast but considering some of the demands of the Olympic committee and their impact on the local communities I've heard of I wonder who in their right mind would go so far out of their way to land it?

As for Bush's 2nd inaugural I just pulled this up quick from Dec 2004. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6717767/

The estimated budget for the event is $30-40 million, but that will not cover security costs.

I doubt there were $100 mil in security costs. But things are different now, to the worst financially. Blowing $millions when money is so tight for many folks, when we are still involved in 2 wars, and when multi $bil bailouts are flying all over the place would seem to indicate the time for some fiscal restraint is now.

Mirage wrote:

I doubt there were $100 mil in security costs.

Here's the breakdown... which you would have seen if you had followed the link that Party42 provided.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/us/politics/06donors.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Quote :

the federal government and the District of Columbia spent a combined $115.5 million, most of it for security, the swearing-in ceremony, cleanup and for a holiday for federal workers.

Mirage wrote:

Blowing $millions when money is so tight for many folks, when we are still involved in 2 wars, and when multi $bil bailouts are flying all over the place would seem to indicate the time for some fiscal restraint is now.

So only Bush and his administration can blow millions.... no.... BILLIONS at a time when restraint should be used? Hmmm...interesting.

A holiday?


Thats absolute horseshit


I had to work yesterday, schools had classes.

Yet federal workers got the day off with pay?

2009 Federal Holidays



Federal law (5 U.S.C. 6103) establishes the following public holidays for Federal employees. Please note that most Federal employees work on a Monday through Friday schedule. For these employees, when a holiday falls on a nonworkday -- Saturday or Sunday -- the holiday usually is observed on Monday (if the holiday falls on Sunday) or Friday (if the holiday falls on Saturday).




NOTE: Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009, falls on a Tuesday. An employee who works in the District of Columbia, Montgomery or Prince George's Counties in Maryland, Arlington or Fairfax Counties in Virginia, or the cities of Alexandria or Falls Church in Virginia, and who is regularly scheduled to perform nonovertime work on Inauguration Day, is entitled to a holiday. (See 5 U.S.C. 6103(c).) There is no in-lieu-of-holiday for employees who are not regularly scheduled to work on Inauguration Day.
* This holiday is designated as "Washington’s Birthday" in section 6103(a) of title 5 of the United States Code, which is the law that specifies holidays for Federal employees. Though other institutions such as state and local governments and private businesses may use other names, it is our policy to always refer to holidays by the names designated in the law.
** July 4, 2009 (the legal public holiday for Independence Day), falls on a Saturday. For most Federal employees, Friday, July 3, will be treated as a holiday for pay and leave purposes. (See 5 U.S.C. 6103(b).)



U.S. Office of Personnel Management 1900 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20415 | (202) 606-1800 | TTY (202) 606-2532

That's bullshit Party

mike3775 wrote:

That's bullshit Party

It may be, but did you know that there are companies all over the country that give there employees Super Bowl Sunday off as a paid holiday? I worked for one of them just 5 years ago. Now that is BS!