Brown and Whitman’s top contributors

October 18, 2010

There has been a lot of debate about the cash being spent on California’s gubernatorial race, but who is actually taking out their checkbooks [CaliforniaWatch]

So far Republican candidate Meg Whitman has spent $140 million, more than any other U.S. public office candidate. Democrat nominee Jerry Brown is standing on the shoulders of his union supporters and has $22 million so far on his campaign.

The top companies contributing to Whitman’s campaign are:

1.    Food 4 Less – $181,000

2.    Panda Restaurant Group Inc. –  $178,600

3.    Goldman Sachs – $155,800

4.    Benchmark Capital – $139,500

5.    Applied Computer Solutions – $117,100

6.    Entrepreneurial Corporate Group – $105,100

7.    Capital Group – $103,800

8.    Hanna Capital Management $103,600

9.    Draper Fisher Jurvetson $96,800

10.    Ebay Inc. – $90,300

The top companies contributing to Brown’s campaign are:

1.    Reyes Holdings LLC – $155,400

2.    The Crane Group – $103,600

3.    Volunteer – $89,840

4.    Pisces Inc. – $85,800

5.    Girardi & Keese – $78,500

6.    State of California – $73,271

7.    Girardi &Keese – $63,800

8.    Dreamworks – $61,800

9.    Trust Company of the West – $57,800

10.    Robinson, Calcagnie & Robinson Inc. – $54,486


Loading...

17 Comments

  1. thinkaboutit says:

    Had either candidate invested their hundreds of millions directly into the State of California for a more useful purpose, such as decreasing the deficit, improving infrastructure, providing jobs, providing nourishment to children or the elderly, etc, it would have gone a long way toward taking immediate ACTION to help our beleaguered state instead of bloating the airwaves with more smog. It would also have been my pleasure to vote for that candidate.

    (-2) 8 Total Votes - 3 up - 5 down
  2. Vallybear says:

    To all those anti-union people out there: Do you really think that employers give you
    vacation time, sick time, holidays off, etc. out of the goodness of their hearts?
    Think again. It really bugs me that so many people criticize the unions. If they should be
    disbanded, how long would it be before ‘you’ started whining about having to work over
    time with no extra pay, no vacation, etc. The republicans will tell you – take responsibility
    for yourself – go into business and then YOU can deny Your workers time off……..
    Brown is the one to vote for. Whitman loves California so much that she and hubby recently bought another gazillion acres in Colorado – in addition to their dude ranch and vacation condo in Telluride. The toughest decision she will make if she gets elected is how soon
    she can get out of CA and vacation in Colorado (just like Bush went to Texas all the time)
    Get smart – vote for Brown!

    (-1) 21 Total Votes - 10 up - 11 down
    • ds_gray says:

      With the current economic and political climate in California, I’d be buying property in Colorado, too! ITS TOO EXPENSIVE TO LIVE, WORK, AND START A BUSINESS HERE!

      No one is criticizing the good work that was done by unions – but the accomplishments you cited were achieved near the beginning of the LAST CENTURY! Wake UP! Unions do not do much more than collect dues, live high on them and pay off politicians to keep their unions in the loop. Its cronyism at its very worst. Unions need to evolve from labor-based unions to company-centric ones, so that true collective bargaining – the reason most union leaders claim to exist for – can occur.

      In her history, Whitman has grown a company. In his history, he has robbed the public coffers and put in motion policies that have resulted in jobs leaving California. So voting for Brown actually results in people moving to Colorado – the very thing you criticize Whitman for!

      (4) 8 Total Votes - 6 up - 2 down
      • Typoqueen says:

        I don’t believe that IT’S TOO EXPENSIIVE FOR MEG TO LIVE, WORK AND START A BUSINESS HERE. I’m pretty sure that she can afford to buy a vaca property here in Ca. But it doesn’t bother me that she bought a place in Co. I just find it kinda funny that you would imply that she can’t afford to buy here.

        How has Jerry ‘robbed’ the public coffers and can you be specific as to what polices he’s responsible for that caused jobs to leave our state? I’m not sure what jobs Jerry sent out of state but it’s common knowlege that Meg sent 40% of Ebay jobs overseas. Is that how she’s going to help Ca.? Typical right wing hypocrisy, it’s okay for Meg to send jobs not just out of the state but out of the country. During Brown’s tenure he created 1.9 million jobs in this state (not oursourced), more than ANY gov. in Ca. history. While he was Mayor of Oakland he created 10,000 jobs. I guess we just have different ideas as to what would be good for this state.

        (2) 2 Total Votes - 2 up - 0 down
  3. backseat_driver says:

    Question: Who spends $140 million for a $150K a year job? She didn’t get rich by throwing away money. Doesn’t anyone else see that there must be a plan to recoup that money and most likely even more or otherwise why is it worth it to her? If you think it is just because she wants to give something back to this once great state, I say lay off the special koolaid

    (-4) 16 Total Votes - 6 up - 10 down
    • racket says:

      Nice try at a slam, but for some people, it ain’t about the money. Particularly if they’ve already got virtually unlimited money.

      On a more pedestrian level, look at the members of your local school board, CSD, city council, etc. The hours given are NEVER adequately recompensed by the stipend (if any) offered.

      Some people are in it for more than just the money, unlike me … and apparently, you.

      (6) 10 Total Votes - 8 up - 2 down
  4. danika says:

    Remember this?

    from the Sacramento Bee
    Judge tosses anti-Brown suit
    Published 12:00 am PST Saturday, February 10, 2007
    A judge on Friday denied a long-shot bid by GOP operatives to have state Attorney General Jerry Brown declared ineligible for office.

    In a lawsuit first brought during Brown’s campaign last fall, several Republican Party officials claimed that Brown did not meet the qualification that an attorney general be an “uninterrupted, active member” of the State Bar for the five years prior to the primary election for the office. Brown, a Democrat, was admitted to the California State Bar in 1965. But he went on “inactive” status in January 1997 and did not reactivate until May 1, 2003, allowing him to pay lower bar dues.

    Sacramento Superior Court Judge Gail Ohanesian ruled that the change in status is “purely ministerial” and that “active status” is not a requirement

    Perhaps you should all consider the Judge in this verdict could very well be supporting Brown’s candidacy now…just a thought…

    (5) 11 Total Votes - 8 up - 3 down
  5. bobfromsanluis says:

    slotired is absolutely correct about the public employee unions being labeled as “State of California”; the interesting fact here is that unions are FORBIDDEN by federal law from using union dues for political contributions. All of the money that unions have spent on political campaigns and/or political causes including advertising that is not connected to a particular campaign come from union members who donate that money for those causes. In the article above, $73, 271. was spent in contributions by public employee unions to the Brown campaign which is $27,000. less than the 10th place contributor to the Whitman campaign, but oh noes, the unions are going to be running the state of California if Jerry Brown is elected! By that very definition of how campaign donations would affect the election, wouldn’t the election of Meg Whitman be beholden to Meg Whitman herself? What could she possibly want from herself as Governor? Would it be the reduction of taxes on people in her income strata? The elimination of estate taxes? What is her motivation for wanting this job that will pay her less than her top three contributors individually gave her campaign? I know you conservatives will have trouble with this and possibly will spout off some of her campaign slogans, but she doesn’t care about those of us that actually have to work for a living; it is all about helping the rich get richer for her, period.

    (1) 17 Total Votes - 9 up - 8 down
  6. Rocky says:

    To taxpayer; are you really that blind, so you think public employees who belong to unions don’t pay taxes? I’m sure they pay just as much as everybody else who works, and they probably pay a higher percentage than the very rich. People who complain about public employees are probably upset because the majority of private sector jobs all went abroad so now they want to attack the few who still have jobs. Since there are not many private sector jobs left who do you think is paying all the taxes…public employees who still have their jobs. Once they go who’s going to fund unemployment checks or any other social funding? But what can you expect everybody needs to blame somebody else for our miserable state of affairs!

    (-3) 21 Total Votes - 9 up - 12 down
    • taxpayer says:

      Gee, so in your world if everyone could just be a government employee all our problems would be solved. You really need to take an economics class or something. Without private industry there is NO MONEY for government employees I don’t care how many taxes they pay. Government isn’t a perpetual motion machine. They don’t exist. All the public employee money, originally, comes from the private sector, including their union dues and their taxes paid. In the real world, there will be no government employees without private business to support them. California can’t print money.

      (6) 18 Total Votes - 12 up - 6 down
  7. taxpayer says:

    Everyone should review the California Watch link. There are $22 million dollars in independent expenditures mainly from public service union organizations. If you want public employee unions to continue to run California then, by all means, Brown is your candidate.

    (3) 27 Total Votes - 15 up - 12 down
  8. taxpayer says:

    Just where do the union members get their money to contribute? They get it from the taxpayers.

    (1) 27 Total Votes - 14 up - 13 down
  9. slotired says:

    Reviewing the link provided greater accuracy in the contributors than provided by CCN. As listed on Brown’s list, the State of California contribution was primarily union organizations which use the State’s name as part of their own name. Those funds did not come from the State of California/taxpayers as that would be unlawful. There should be campaign expense limits to stop the richest from buying their office. That tells me a great deal about the character, or lack there of of Ms. Whitman. I hate to vote against my declared party but she has a personal agenda that doesn’t likly include us working folk.

    (5) 23 Total Votes - 14 up - 9 down
    • south says:

      So using that logic, if I am rich, I am disqualified from running for office? How about the simple fact that if I am not beholden to rich patrons who put me into office I can act independently. Ever hear of the saying, “put your money where your mouth is”? Don’t you think Whitman is doing that, as opposed to Moonbeam who is relying on unions, most of the population of SF and LA and left leaning special interests?

      Only in California can a failed governor, best known for his wacky ideas and famous girlfriend, actually have a chance at a second try. Alas, we are destined to be governed by those we elect.

      Can we also have a national politician who does not come from San Francisco pleeeze?

      (1) 23 Total Votes - 12 up - 11 down
      • Typoqueen says:

        South, you are saying that it’s okay to buy political seats. Who ever spends the most will have a huge advantage and if you don’t have enough money than don’t even try. I didn’t see anything in slotired’s post where he/she says that you should be disqualified for running because you are rich. Typical right wing nonsense that you people believe it’s okay to bought and sold by big corp.. How has the right gotten so corrupt that you people feel that’s okay. At one time McCain for for campaign reform so everyone could run on an equal playing field but he is as corrupt as the rest of them now.

        We were in better shape when Brown was in office then we are now as a matter of fact the state of Ca. was in great shape then. Brown did a good job in Oakland and he’s been an effective Attorney General. How do you feel that he ‘failed’ and what were his ‘wacky ideas’ and why are you bitter that he had a famous girlfriend? What’s wrong with having national politicians from SF? SF is a wonderful city with a rich history, As far as big cities go, I love SF.

        (4) 26 Total Votes - 15 up - 11 down
      • slotired says:

        Actually South, my suggestion was to cap or limit the amount of spending for any political office. I am so sick of the ads from both candidates. However, the forums/debates were much more informative and a better use of time for those of us who vote. Oh, that’s right, Meg votes NOW. Neither candidate blows my skirt up but there are no other viable choices. I prefer the candidate who doesn’t buy her office like Arnold did.

        (5) 9 Total Votes - 7 up - 2 down

Comments are closed.