Silicon Valley backs Obama – big time

“If dollars translate into votes then tech’s top companies are squarely behind Barack Obama, by a better than 5 to 1 margin if you believe the Center for Responsive Politics and its latest stats on the issue,” Jim Goldman reports for CNBC.

“The group put together donation records for some of the top companies in Silicon Valley and the numbers are striking. Overall, Obama outraised John McCain $1,434,719 to $267,041. Google was Obama’s single biggest corporate donor, racking up $485,961 in donations, compared to only $20,600 for John McCain,” Goldman reports.

“As for McCain’s biggest corporate donor? That’d be Cisco Systems, where CEO John Chambers is a vocal supporter of McCain as a co-chairman of his campaign. Employees there forked over $80,676 to McCain. But those donations still didn’t measure up to the $149,078 Cisco employees also sent Obama’s way,” Goldman reports.

“Other notables? Apple Inc. workers donated $98,023 for Obama and $16,950 for McCain; Hewlett-Packard employees raised $148,057 for Obama, and $15,750 for McCain,” Goldman reports.

“Important to note: The Center for Responsive Politics says some contributors didn’t identify their employer so all of this might not represent every donation. Also important: McCain’s fundraising was limited because he accepted public-financing while Obama did not, so that might skew the numbers in Obama’s favor as well,” Goldman reports.

More in the full article here.

58 Comments

  1. Say what you will about George W. Bush, but the worst blunder of his administration was to pave the way for this man and what promises to be the single largest peace time expansion of the Federal Government since the Great Depression, even though history shows this is the biggest economic mistake you can possibly make.

  2. If by “Obamagasm” you mean the coming flood of new government programs, laws on top of laws, taxes, redistribution of wealth, aka giant liberal albatross on the back of the economy, getting it over with is a pipe dream. They haven’t even started.

  3. Probably for the same reason that so many leading scientists do.

    List of scientists who endorsed Barack Obama:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_endorsements

    Peter Agre, Nobel Prize-winning scientist (Chemistry 2003)
    Don Lamb, University of Chicago astrophysicist and former NASA scientist
    Sharon Long, former dean of Stanford University’s School of Humanities & Science
    Gilbert Omenn, Professor of internal medicine, human genetics and public health at the University of Michigan
    Peter Norvig (Director of Research, Google)
    David Cope, Professor Emeritus, University of California, progenitor of algorithmic composition
    Harold Varmus, Nobel Prize-winning scientist (Medicine 1989)
    Alexei Abrikosov (Nobel Laureate Physics 2003)
    Roger Guillemin (Nobel Laureate Medicine 1977)
    John L. Hall (Nobel Laureate Physics 2005)
    Sidney Altman(Nobel Laureate Chemistry 1989)
    Leland H. Hartwell (Nobel Laureate Medicine 2001)
    Philip W. Anderson (Nobel Laureate Physics 1977)
    Dudley Herschbach (Nobel Laureate Chemistry 1986)
    Richard Axel (Nobel Laureate Medicine 2004)
    Roald Hoffmann (Nobel Laureate Chemistry 1981)
    David Baltimore (Nobel Laureate Medicine 1975)
    H. Robert Horvitz (Nobel Laureate Medicine 2002)
    Baruj Benacerraf (Nobel Laureate Medicine 1980)
    Louis Ignarro (Nobel Laureate Medicine 1998)
    Paul Berg (Nobel Laureate Chemistry 1980)
    Eric R. Kandel (Nobel Laureate Medicine 2000)
    J. Michael Bishop (Nobel Laureate Medicine 1989)
    Walter Kohn (Nobel Laureate Chemistry 1998)
    Nicolaas Bloembergen (Nobel Laureate Physics 1981)
    Roger Kornberg (Nobel Laureate Chemistry 2006)
    Michael S. Brown (Nobel Laureate Medicine 1985)
    Leon M. Lederman (Nobel Laureate Physics 1988)
    Linda B. Buck (Nobel Laureate Medicine 2004)
    Craig C. Mello (Nobel Laureate Medicine 2006)
    Mario R. Capecchi (Nobel Laureate Medicine 2007)
    Oliver Smithies (Nobel Laureate Medicine 2007)
    Marshall Nirenberg (Nobel Laureate Medicine 1968)
    Stanley Cohen (Nobel Laureate Medicine 1986)
    Douglas D. Osheroff (Nobel Laureate Physics 1996)
    Leon Cooper (Nobel Laureate Physics 1972)
    Stanley B. Prusiner (Nobel Laureate Medicine 1997)
    James W. Cronin (Nobel Laureate Physics 1980)
    Norman F. Ramsey (Nobel Laureate Physics 1989)
    Robert F. Curl (Nobel Laureate Chemistry 1996)
    Robert Richardson (Nobel Laureate Physics 1996)
    Johann Deisenhofer (Nobel Laureate Chemistry 1988)
    Burton Richter (Nobel Laureate Physics 1976)
    John B. Fenn (Nobel Laureate Chemistry 2002)
    Sherwood Rowland (Nobel Laureate Chemistry 1995)
    Edmond H. Fischer (Nobel Laureate Medicine 1992)
    Oliver Smithies (Nobel Laureate Medicine 2007)
    Val Fitch (Nobel Laureate Physics 1980)
    Richard Schrock (Nobel Laureate Chemistry 2005)
    Jerome I. Friedman (Nobel Laureate Physics 1990)
    Joseph H. Taylor Jr. (Nobel Laureate Physics 1993)
    Riccardo Giacconi (Nobel Laureate Physics 2002)
    E. Donnall Thomas (Nobel Laureate Medicine 1990)
    Walter Gilbert (Nobel Laureate Chemistry 1980)
    Charles H. Townes (Nobel Laureate Physics 1964)
    Alfred G. Gilman (Nobel Laureate Medicine 1994)
    Daniel C. Tsui (Nobel Laureate Physics 1998)
    Donald A. Glaser (Nobel Laureate Physics 1960)
    Sheldon Glashow (Nobel Laureate Physics 1979)
    James D. Watson(Nobel Laureate Medicine1962)
    Joseph Goldstein(Nobel Laureate Medicine 1985)
    Eric Wieschaus(Nobel Laureate Medicine 1995)
    Paul Greengard(Nobel Laureate Medicine 2000)
    Frank Wilczek(Nobel Laureate Physics 2004)
    David Gross(Nobel Laureate Physics 2004)
    Robert W. Wilson(Nobel Laureate Physics 1978)
    Robert H. Grubbs (Nobel Laureate Chemistry 2005)
    Martin Chalfie (Nobel Laureate Chemistry 2008)

    List of scientists who endorsed John McCain:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_John_McCain_presidential_campaign_endorsements

    ZZZZZZZEEEEERRRRROO000OO!!!!!

  4. “Apple Inc. workers donated $98,023 for Obama and $16,950 for McCain”
    I’m with ericdano on this … let’s just get it over with. Only about four or five states really matter in this, the rest are foregone conclusions. It might be beneficial if the rules were modified slightly so that candidates were awarded a rough percentage of each state’s delegates rather than “winner-take-all”.
    As for StarkReality, you don’t think several thousand needless deaths of young Americans is a “blunder” of immense proportions? That the shredding of the Constitution is at least as bad? That feeding the War Profiteers is immoral and unethical beyond abidance? That torture … never mind, “I survived worse at my frat house”, SURE you did.
    Back On Topic: can we set a rule here? That openly political commentary be banned? For McCain, against McSame, for Obama, against Osama … all of it. The civil and the uncivil alike. The statement quoted is the only part of this that related to Apple – and it said nothing about the hardware, the software, the marketing, or anything else relating to company business.

  5. This election will be one of the most important of our lifetimes. Please make your decision based upon the moral character and values of the candidates rather than it being a referendum on George Bush’s real and perceived shortcomings. There is room for significant disappointment with the Presidency, House, Senate, Judiciary and news media.

    Here’s what we know about Barak Obama’s personal conduct and sacrificial, charitable giving –
    “Senator Obama’s 1% giving to charity calls into question his commitment to the poor and needy and exposes his lack of conviction to the most vulnerable in our society. Recent tax returns made public by Senator Obama, from 2000 though 2004, show that he gave less than 1% of his income to charitable causes. Senator Obama has campaigned on the theme of change and reaching out to the most needy and broken in our society, but he is not willing to “put his money where his mouth is” on the issue of social justice.”

    Barak Obama does think, however, that it is acceptable and a moral obligation to take from you by force that which you have earned by sweat and sacrifice. These recent words of Barak Obama quoted from an October 31 news story are instructive.

    “The reason that we want to do this, change our tax code, is not because I have anything against the rich,” Obama said in Sarasota, Fla., yesterday. “I love rich people! I want all of you to be rich. Go for it. That’s the American dream, that’s the American way, that’s terrific.

    “The point is, though, that — and it’s not just charity, it’s not just that I want to help the middle class and working people who are trying to get in the middle class — it’s that when we actually make sure that everybody’s got a shot – when young people can all go to college, when everybody’s got decent health care, when everybody’s got a little more money at the end of the month – then guess what? Everybody starts spending that money, they decide maybe I can afford a new car, maybe I can afford a computer for my child. They can buy the products and services that businesses are selling and everybody is better off. All boats rise. That’s what happened in the 1990s, that’s what we need to restore. And that’s what I’m gonna do as president of the United States of America.

    “John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic,” Obama continued. “You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.”

    Now let’s also think about something the Supreme Court decided –

    “The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted.” (U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sutherland, Gregory vs. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465, 1965)

    There IS NO moral obligation to pay high taxes. There is a personal moral obligation to take care of your family and your fellow man. It is important to show self sacrifice and personally help others through time, talent and treasure. Barak Obama has demonstrated profound selfishness by not personally doing more – he has personally only voluntarily given less than 1% of his own income. Yet he wants to forcibly take from people who have sacrificed to produce monetary wealth. Many of these people have voluntarily and sacrificially given of their own free will to charities and causes of their own choice – something that Obama himself has failed to do. Obama’s desired actions will increase the power of government at the expense of your personal freedom and liberty.

    Obama looks good on TV and speaks eloquently but leadership based on his value system and personal decisions is bad for the country. While this email is mainly about one of many reason why I will not support Barak Obama with my vote, there are many reasons why John McCain deserves my vote. Among them is his prior service and sacrifice to our country. John McCain is the only candidate who has made sacrificial giving to protect and preserve our freedoms. He did that by serving during war time. He did that with his service in the Senate. And he has done that by consistently giving over 10% of his income to charity.

    A final personal note – Democrats and Republicans are all Americans. And more often than not, I believe we all want what is good and right for this country. Many times we agree on what is good and right. More frequently we simply disagree on how to get from where we are as a people to where we want to be and know we should be as a people. It is important that we not vilify one another. It is equally important that we speak in truth and love. And that we examine the moral compass of those we choose to lead and guide us.

    May God bless you and may God bless this country.

  6. I wonder if it’s worth iCal’ing all the Obama win doom-sayers and, for that matter, those who see Obama as the second coming of JFK. Right now it strikes me that their comments and prognostications have about as much value as an Enderle analysis.

    Perhaps we should all just relax and wait to see how this works out. Give Obama (or McCain, should he win) the chance to actually DO something instead of just promise something before shooting off your mouth. Kind of like Enderle shooting his mouth off without actually using a Mac (or properly testing Windows 7 touchscreen). Oh how that demo made me laugh!

    As for me…I’m off to pick up my son from school so that he can come with me when I vote.

  7. MDN won’t get rid of the political posts because they generate too many page hits, and that’s what MDN cares about, not keeping things civil here.

    And as for Obama, I get a chuckle out of StarkReality. The biggest PEACETIME expansion of the federal government? What happened to those wars you guys have been hawking for the last couple of elections? You mean getting Obama in office is going to bring peace? Cool, that’s fantastic.

  8. @ Not Ready to Fork it Over
    “There IS NO moral obligation to pay high taxes. There is a personal moral obligation to take care of your family and your fellow man.”

    Can you cut your posts down a notch, Safari is smoking here. Also I think your statement here is contradictory. My brother IS my keeper and the main way I keep him and my family well nowadays is through my taxes and the social services they buy. The only issue is how much taxes and what level of services.

  9. Does this mean there will be a Mac in the oval office?
    Seems as if most truly believe the media hype…I see it as dead even. Keep in mind, Obama barely beat Hillary, and CNN has Obama barely ahead of the unappealing, older, Bush attached McCain. If Obama is truly a savior, then he should be farther ahead.
    Maybe we should write in Cindy Crawford for president if we want to gamble for appeal and “gonna”. We all enjoyed 6 good economic years of Bush, but that history is thrown in the trash. No president wishes for the difficulties that Bush has had in his 8 years…I don’t agree with everything, but I commend him on many things. It wasn’t easy.

  10. “Please make your decision based upon the moral character and values of the candidates rather than it being a referendum on George Bush’s real and perceived shortcomings.”

    You Republicans want to sweep George W. Bush under the rug so badly. Anything to avoid taking responsibility for the mess you’ve laid at our doorstep.

    Why shouldn’t this election be a referendum on George Bush when one of the candidates is promising to continue his policies? It seems to me that we should look at the previous 8 years in order to gauge what our future would resemble if said candidate were to be elected.

    There is not one fundamental difference between George W. Bush and John McCain. The latter just promises to “cut spending” but we all know how that works out since all modern Republican presidents promised the same only to leave us drowning in deficits.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.