Elusive, Owasso (11/29/2009 4:25:30 AM)

Here we go again, elections are about how much money your raise, who you have in your backpocket.

Isaac Parker, Tulsa (11/29/2009 4:47:11 AM)

Lawyers contributing overwhelmingly to Dems...Who'da thunk?

droopy, wagoner (11/29/2009 6:33:35 AM)

Looks like lawyers are lining up to file the next stupid lawsuit for the Captain.

Carl, Henryetta (11/29/2009 8:34:31 AM)

That table at the end makes no sense whatsoever.

$866 K is 28.8% of the total - yet the TOTAL ($1.4 M) is 9.3% of the total????????

DirtyWhiteHouse, (11/29/2009 9:30:39 AM)

Gone are the days of the handshake to settle an agreement.

Gone are the days of the housecall made by a family doctor.

Those cultural changes are the contributing factors to why we are a litigious, malpractice laden country.

We have no intimate connection with those we do business with - so just sue them when things go wrong - right or wrong.

DirtyWhiteHouse, (11/29/2009 9:36:22 AM)

As a rule - I NEVER vote for a lawyer. Ever. I just figure there HAS to be somebody better. Next on the list - no more doctors in politics. I am sick of Coburn's agenda. I am NOT for obamacare welfare but I also hate the current climate of the world of medi-sin.

I'm inclined to vote for the private business owner who rose through the ranks with a lot of hard work and none of daddy's money or even the stay at home mom who has managed raising her kids, managing a household, and spent hours volunteering.

DirtyWhiteHouse, (11/29/2009 9:42:33 AM)

Here is how elections should be handled:

Each and every candidate at any given level office gets an equal and predetermined amount of money they are allowed to spend on their campaign.

They are given an equal and predetermined amount of public air time whether through radio or cable tv.

They are NOT ALLOWED to know who their contributors are.

Alan Shore, (11/29/2009 10:06:02 AM)

Republicans backed by the oil & gas scammers and the land barons, who'd a thunk it?

DirtyWhiteHouse, (11/29/2009 10:08:17 AM)

Gas keeps us warm. Builders provide shelter. we may not like the price of either but what do you get when you are sued in a frivolous lawsuit driven by greed, or murdered by an incompetent doctor?

Carl, Henryetta (11/29/2009 12:23:46 PM)

Or what do you do when you're a good doctor and get sued by a greedy litigious patient to whom you did NOTHING WRONG?

Carl, Henryetta (11/29/2009 12:27:43 PM)

Dirty - how would you propose to shield the donors identity from the candidate - since all they need to do is send a letter or email to the candidate?

Also - gas keeps us warm but can also EXPLODE and kill. Builders sometimes build shoddy houses and things fall apart and break down.

And I'm anxious to learn how the overall cessation of housecalls contributes to malpractice.

You seem to have a lot of poorly thought out ideas floating around in your head...

lufkin, (11/29/2009 12:31:23 PM)

Edmondson is bought and paid for by trial lawyers like a piece of meat at the supermarket.DrewBoy is like a not so cheap prostitute.

Tulsa World Staff Writer Randy Krehbiel, Tulsa (11/29/2009 12:57:38 PM)

Carl --

You are right. The last figure on the chart doesn't make sense. A numeral got lost somewhere along the way. Should be the $1.4m is 49.3% of all money contributed

Carl, Henryetta (11/29/2009 1:39:17 PM)

Thanks. it's just a TAD misleading, I think, to say that lawyers and doctors are leading contributors. "Doctors" gave 8.8% - less than a third of what the lawyers gave. Oil & Gas was a close third and they could have as well been included in the "top contributors" headline.

Who gave the rest - private, unaffiliated citizens? How about "small business owners", insurance companies, etc?

007, Tulsa (11/29/2009 2:12:32 PM)

HMMM Doctors,Ranchers, Educators, Attorneys and Oil companies, and yet we all need them.

confederateU, (11/29/2009 2:46:39 PM)

Regarding the post about donating to candidates and not knowing who gave how much. It's easy really - the donations could be sent directly to a bank account much like charitable donations are given and the contributions are to remain confidential. Happens all the time.

Ignatz, A nice place where Democrats hold every office in the County. (11/29/2009 3:43:19 PM)

At some point (probably when the Repub winner is obvious) the insurance industry will weigh in with big bucks to pay for negative tv spots against whomever the Dem candidate is. The donations this lawyer has made are generally determined by the fact that some clown wants to increase the power of the wealthy by denying constitutional guarantees to everyone else under the guise of being "pro-business." I always donate to their opponents.

mayor_maynot, Tulsa (11/29/2009 4:54:31 PM)

Didn't read the article. But I bet I can sum it up in one line
"Gypsies tramps and thieves"
CHER

That's most of the posters too!!!
Not all just most

Carl, Henryetta (11/29/2009 4:56:52 PM)

confederateU - okay, so the contributors, who all WANT the candidate to know that he/she OWES them favors in exchange for the cash will just EMAIL them.....duh.

Stratolifter, (11/29/2009 5:33:15 PM)

Actually Carla, let them email. If it's a violation of federal statutes, they will be caught. Where there is a will there is a way, and if the Feds wanted to figure out a way to make political contributions confidential, they can do it. Problem is, it would level the playing field WAY TOO MUCH and therefore, those already elected in place by an overwhelming majority of wealthy contributors, will not allow the laws to change. It's too lucrative for them.

Stratolifter, (11/29/2009 5:34:07 PM)

But it is a good idea. We have to find a way to take money out of politics. I want "Joe Citizen" to be able to have a chance.

KJNOKIE, TULSA (11/29/2009 5:40:28 PM)

Their bribes--er, donations--should be taxed. If the politicians are going to sell their souls, the public should get something. And I bet every candidate is a Christian and wants to improve education. Until elected.

Carl, Henryetta (11/29/2009 5:42:32 PM)

A federal law restricting someone's right to communicate elctronically or otherwise with a political candidate? Not likely since FORMER political candidates make the laws.

Carl, Henryetta (11/29/2009 5:43:04 PM)

very funny calling me Carla, by the way.

mayor_maynot, Tulsa (11/29/2009 5:49:39 PM)

Carl : Is that ethical. If not then caveat emptor. Asking for political favors with a :-) & cash on line is way more transparent. It shows in triplicate yours his and theirs no quadruplicate cause you may have more than one isp. Good thing TW let's us say these things on their forum it commonly falls under entertainment.
Ignatzzz. Would cross the line to vote for Arnold.

Ignatz, A nice place where Democrats hold every office in the County. (11/29/2009 6:32:42 PM)

Arnold who? I would cross the line to vote for Clint. Strato...we must publicly fund elections in this country and stop fat cat donations.

Bat1, (11/29/2009 10:33:16 PM)

Political Donation = " I'm gonna give you money now to buy your vote on a certain issue later".

Msdash00, Rural (11/29/2009 11:04:27 PM)

Since education is being bludgeoned to death, quite rapidly at present- I can see why those in that field are uniting and contribiuting so heavily.
I think most people would be amazed and amused by the questionaires these groups (and others i.e. NRA) formulate and use to select their canidate of choice.

jess, (11/30/2009 6:19:17 AM)

We need tort reform now.

Alaska_Okie, Bixby, OK (11/30/2009 9:31:10 AM)

I find some of these numbers conflicting. One would think that industries like medical or oil & gas would give decidingly one way or another and not split to both candidates.

@Jess, I'm guessing you missed the article lining out the fact that "tort reform" has already worked in OK and the US in general.