>“Through June, Exxon employees have given Obama $42,100 to McCain’s $35,166. Chevron favors Obama $35,157 to $28,500, and Obama edges out McCain with BP $16,046 vs. $11,500.”
>
>http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/08/oil-industry-leans-toward-mcca.html
>


These numbers are ridiculously small, compared to gains these companies reap later.

Worse kind, IMO, is one who takes a bribe from suppliers when procuring stuff for the government (or, in case of self-managed, for an enterprise). The bribe is not coming out of the supplier's pockets. It's coming from the amount they will charge for the goods. So that bribe is money one gets from one's own employer for not doing his job honestly - no better than theft from a communal storeroom.

The stories of how $100K worth of lobbying can land a company a dozen billion contract... that's a steep ROI rate.

>but the big differenc here is that in most cases, Obama's came from the individuals which suggests an individual choice whereas McCain's came from the PAC. However, the PAC is hedging its bets by giving to both...

Obama may as well do some good once he gets to sit there, just because of this power of hopes the people project into him. In a country which believes in such things, they may have a physical effect; belief may be immaterial but it can cause action. He may also be like Tvrtko I Kotromanić, the first Bosnian king... or at least like the guy in the story, as told by our history professor - because now reading it over, it seems far more complicated. The story is that at some point in XIV century, when the throne was empty, the nobility didn't want a strong ruler, which may require them to supply armies or exact other unpleasantries from them, so they put Tvrtko, who was young and supposedly weak. Instead, he lived up to his name (tvrd: hard). He just played weak until he got on the throne.

That's the story (though not really the history), and Obama may as well find a spine somewhere behind a cabinet in the oval office.