Part of the Bay Area News Group

Updated info: California’s presidential ‘bundlers’

By Josh Richman
Thursday, July 26th, 2012 at 3:18 pm in 2012 presidential election, Barack Obama, campaign finance, Mitt Romney.

The Center for Responsive Politics has updated its list of President Obama’s campaign “bundlers,” those who gather other people’s donations and deliver them to the campaign en masse. Here’s the list for California, down to the $100,000 mark:

  • Jeffrey Katzenberg, Los Angeles – CEO, DreamWorks Animation – $2,329,092
  • Wayne Jordan, Piedmont – Jordan Real Estate Investments – $1,359,953
  • Sandi Thompson, Woodside – Attorney, wife of former Symantec CEO John Thompson – $891,556
  • Geoffrey Stack, Corona Del Mar – Managing Director, SARES•REGIS Group – $687,453
  • Colleen Bell, Los Angeles – Bell-Phillip TV Productions – $460,500
  • Marc Benioff, San Francisco – CEO, salesforce.com – $451,980
  • Robert Mailer Anderson & Nicola Miner, San Francisco – author; Oracle heiress – $396,450
  • Becky Draper, San Francisco – venture capital heiress – $359,642
  • Mai Lassiter, Los Angeles – wife of film producer James Lassiter – $350,837
  • John Emerson, Los Angeles – president, Capital Group Private Client Services – $319,695
  • Doug Hickey, San Francisco – President & CEO, GlobalCenter – $314,100
  • Brian Lee, Los Angeles – co-founder, Legalzoom.com – $299,800
  • Kathy Levinson, Los Altos – managing director, Golden Seeds – $202,150
  • Massi Joseph Kiani, Laguna Niguel – CEO & chairman, Masimo Corp. – $200,980
  • Mattie McFadden-Lawson, Los Angeles – president, MML Design Group – $165,680
  • Janet Keller, Laguna Beach – political consultant – $162,550
  • Imaad Zuberi, Arcadia – partner, Avenue Ventures – $139,023
  • Shefali Razdan Duggal, San Francisco – National Finance Committee member, Obama for America – $130,957
  • Azita Raji, Belvedere – National Finance Committee vice-chair, Obama for America – $130,322
  • The center notes that Federal Election Commission regulations only require disclosure of funds bundled by registered lobbyists. In 2008, both Barack Obama and John McCain agreed to disclose any bundlers who raised over $50,000 for their campaigns. Obama’s re-election campaign is again disclosing those bundlers for the 2012 election, but Mitt Romney’s has refused.

    So all we know is that 34 registered lobbyists have bundled a total of $5,250,506 for Romney’s presidential campaign; none of them are from California.

    [You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]

    • JohnW

      It seems Romney is more consistent than we give him credit for. No disclosure of bundlers and no disclosure of tax returns. Because, you see, if they disclosed the bundlers, those mean old Democrats would harass the poor wittle bundlers.

    • Elwood

      Disclosure of bundlers is voluntary.

      http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/bundlers.php

    • JohnW

      True. Same for tax returns. Evidently, Obama is quite a bit more into volunteering than Mitt is.

    • RR, Senile Columnist

      I wanna know how many foreign Muslims, Indonesians and Kenyans gave cash to BHO.

    • JohnW

      Re: #4

      Well, cash would be illegal. But you can look up the names and locations of anybody legally contributing $200 or more on the FEC website. And Obama is disclosing $50k or more bundlers online. I’m sure if there were any nefariously Muslim or foreign skeletons in Obama’s campaign closet, Michelle Bacchmann and Louie Gohmert, Rush or Sean would have been screaming about it by now.

    • Elwood

      @ #3 John W.

      “Obama is quite a bit more into volunteering than Mitt is.”

      Well, after all, his only work experience in the private sector was as a community organizer.

    • JAFO

      Given his noteworthy list of sealed documents, including his recent claim of executive privilege with regard to DOJ “Fast and Furious” record, BO’s claim of superior “transparency” seems more applicable to his motives than his administration.

    • Elwood

      @ #7 JAFO

      Well put!

    • JohnW

      Re: #7 and 8

      Yes, well put!

      “Yeah, he’s got a responsibility to protect executive privilege. That’s just part of preserving the powers of the presidency.” Mitt Romney in a March 2007 interview with radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt regarding Bush use of executive privilege to prevent White House aides from testifying before Congress in connection with the controversial firings of U.S. Attorneys, including Karl Rove’s involvement. Well put, Mitt!

      Number of times executive privilege invoked since 1980: Obama 1, GW Bush 6, Clinton 14, GHW Bush 1, Reagan 3.

      Yes, I know, candidate Obama criticized Bush 43 for excessive use of executive privilege.

      Back to campaign finance transparency. It appears Obama hearts that more than Mitt.

    • Elwood

      What do James Holmes and Barack Obama have in common?

      Both their college records are sealed.

    • GerryMaine

      @ 10 Elwood
      There is a difference!
      James Holmes are sealed in connection with a criminal investigation and will be released once the investigation is concluded.

      Obama’s records are sealed because he wants to AVOID a criminal investigation!

      Clear enough for ya’?

    • JohnW

      Obama’s college records must be a real train wreck. How else to explain his selection first as a member of the Harvard Law Review and then his election as the Review’s president ? Among those classmates and fellow Review members supporting his election was Brad Berenson, who worked in the G.W. Bush White House and who is now a member of Romney’s justice advisory committee, and who to this day praises Obama’s work in that position.

      Or how else to explain his appointment to the faculty as Senior Lecturer at the conservative-leaning top rated University of Chicago law school and his subsequent invitation to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position — which he declined due to his other ambitions?

      Must have been affirmative action on steroids, right? I mean, how else would a black man get those positions?

    • Elwood

      @ #12 John W.

      Thank you for the paean to the brilliance of Obama, John.

      Now would you please explain why his records are sealed?

    • Publius

      Re:#13

      I am sure John W would agree that there is only one reason that could explain why Obama’s records are sealed.

      GEORGE BUSH!!!!!! George has them in a safe somewhere in the Lone Star State.

      Everything is Bush’s fault.

    • JohnW

      When you say “records,” perhaps you could be a bit more specific. Are you speaking of his Beatles collection? If so, I agree. He should definitely release them.

    • Elwood

      Cute, John.

      You know what I mean.

      Why are you being disingenuous?

    • JohnW

      Actually, I’m serious. Which records are you talking about? College records, or what?

    • Elwood

      John see #10

      You don’t understand “college records” and some of the following comments?

      You seemed to understand all right in your post #12.

    • JohnW

      Okay, college records it is.

      Request denied.

      Like tax returns, the privacy of college records is protected by law. Releasing them without the expressed consent of the former student is unlawful. Obama’s school records have not been “sealed.” He simply has not authorized their release. Why should he? Donald Trump would just say they were forgeries.

      There is an established tradition of and rationale for presidents and presidential candidates releasing their tax returns and other financial information. There is no such established tradition or rationale for school records.

      Yes, Bush’s college grades found their way into a national magazine, but not with his consent. Somebody should have gone to jail.

      The current noise about college records (and even grade school records) was literally “Trumped up.”

      Somebody has offered a $10,000 reward for anybody who can cough up Obama’s college records. That person should be prosecuted for attempted bribery and conspiracy to violate the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act of 1974.

    • Elwood

      Good luck with that, John.

      Nice attempt at spin.

    • Truthclubber

      16 of the 20 comments (80%!) posted in this single thread were by the “bromance” of JohnW and Elwood — and don’t anyone dare to challenge their supremacy of ownership on “all things known” on “all topics possible” — lest their very fragile (and constantly “in need of feed”) egos get crushed.

      It will only cause them to stay up even later than 12:30 am (@15 as reference) to try to reassert themselves and try to make themselves psychologically “whole”.