Moveon.org Questions Hillary Clinton's Wealthy Campaign Financers

Moveon.org, a very questionable organization, has the audacity to accuse some of Clinton's wealthier supporters of bullying elected leaders. Well, here is what Moveon.org calls bullying:

"Twenty of Clinton's major donors sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Wednesday that suggested they might rethink their support for the party's congressional efforts this cycle if Pelosi did not alter her publicly stated view that superdelegates should support the party's pledged delegate leader -- a position that would be fatal to Clinton's presidential bid."

Meanwhile . . .

"Her [Hillary Clinton's] supporters have recently argued with their checkbooks that superdelegates should vote their conscience at the Democratic National Convention in August."

Personally, I agree with Hillary's supporters. I think that the superdelegates should vote their conscience. That's what normal citizens of the U.S. do. Why should superdelegates vote for one candidate just because he/she has more votes than the other? They should vote for whomever they think is the best candidate. Moveon.rog claims, "It's the worst kind of insider politics -- billionaires bullying our elected leaders into ignoring the will of the voters." No, they're not bullying them. They're simply bribing the elected leaders to do the right thing because they wouldn't necessarily do it otherwise. That's the way I see it. Otherwise, superdelegates might just jump on the "Obama's ahead" bandwagon and take the position that they might was well vote for him. This completely disregards one's conscience because they're being swayed to vote for someone just because he has a slight lead. While I'll admit that superdelegates should not have to be bribed into doing the right thing (i.e. voting their conscience), it is better to do that than allow them to feel the pressure of the Democratic Party to vote for a candidate just because he has a slight lead.

Here's what I think . . . . I think Moveon.org and other Obama supporters are creating a distraction to keep people from questioning where Barack's campaign funds are coming from. Barack is currently over $20 million ahead of Hillary in gross campaign funding. Furthermore, Barack currently has 3 times the cash on hand as Hillary. Barack wants to know where Hillary's money is coming from. I, and most likely many others, would like to know where Barack's money is coming from.

Let's take a look:

First entry here from campaign funding report for March 2008:

NO EMPLOYER WAS SUPPLIED $25,498,555.80 (anonymous donations)

Probably more than one source, but that's still a huge hunk of change! And I'm willing to bet that a lot of these "No employer was supplied" funds came from big oil, pharmaceutical companies, big tobacco, etc.

Other sizable donors include:

NOT EMPLOYED - $6,667,752.83 (anonymous donations)
UNEMPLOYED - $41,799.44 (anonymous donations)

Not employed? What? Are we talking retired billionaires?

INFORMATION REQUESTED - $467,598.67 (anonymous donations)

SELF EMPLOYED - $4,958,065.42 (more anonymous donations)

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR - over $32,000
WATTS LAW FIRM - over $20,000
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN - over $20,000
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON - over $30,000
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA - over $20,000
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA - over $20,000
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO - over $31,000
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA - over $40,000
UBS - over $25,000
SUSMAN GODFREY - over $25,000
STANFORD UNIVERSITY - over $25,000
SIDLEY & AUSTIN - over $20,000
NORTHWESTERN STATE UNIVERSITY - about $20,000
NA - over $36,000 (I assume this means "not applicable"; more anonymous donations)
MORGAN STANLEY - over $37,000
MICROSOFT - over $54,000
LEHMAN BROTHERS - over $25,000
LATHAM & WATKINS - over $28,000
KIRKLAND & ELLIS - over $20,000
JONES DAY - over $22,000
IBM - over $46,000
HARVARD UNIVERSITY - over $50,000
GOOGLE - over $60,000
GOLDMAN SACHS - over $45,000
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER - over $20,000
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY - over $25,000
GENERAL ELECTRIC - over $20,000
FREELANCE - over $23,000 (anonymous donation?)
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY - over $36,000
CITIGROUP - over $30,000
AT&T - over $22,000

Although I went through the entire list and selected companies/organizations who donated at least $20,000, it's the huge anonymous donations that are my real concern. If you take the time to go here and scroll through the thousands of contributors, you will notice some small figures from pharmaceutical companies and such. However, I'm willing to bet that big oil, pharmaceutical companies, big tobacco, Fortune 500 corporations, and other companies with deep pockets made anonymous donations too.

In total, Barack received $37,692,772.16. In fairness, I'll say that Hillary received about $19,176,609.62 in anonymous donations. Nevertheless, she never professed to be running a clean campaign free of lobbyists, etc.

Why did I go through all of this trouble? I wanted to show you that Barack has received millions of dollars from unnamed sources. He claims to be running a clean campaign and not to receive funds from lobbyists, etc. If this is the case, why do his sources feel the need to hide if they are not questionable? While there might be valid reasons for some sources to hide their identity, it still seems very suspicious that Barack has received such large sums of money from these sources.