Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
01.04.2008 10:35 am

The Marshall plan: Faulk backs Obama

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Add the great No. 28 to the list of Barack Obama supporters smiling today.

Campaign records show that former Rams running back Marshall Faulk gave $1,000 to Illinois’ junior senator in March.

Maybe Faulk can give Obama some advice on playing with the lead?

Other notable local donors to Obama’s campaign include:

  • State Auditor Susan Montee and family, including her three children - who, despite listing their occupation as “student,” each gave $2,300.
  • Barbara Eagleton, widow of former U.S. Sen. Thomas Eagleton.
  • Build-A-Bear Workshop founder Maxine Clark - who hosted a stuffed-teddy fundraiser for Obama rival Hillary Clinton last month.
  • Former St. Louis Mayor Vince Schoemehl, and former Clayton Mayor Ben Uchitelle.
  • Attorney and tavern owner  Jim Holloran .

Across the aisle, the Republican winner of the Iowa caucus, Mike Huckabee, has only a handful of donors here, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Highlighting Huckabee’s few St. Louis supporters was prominent GOP attorney Jerry Hunter, who gave the former Arkansas governor $2,300 last year.

Many of our area’s most dependable Republican donors - from millionaire ambassador Sam Fox to the Cardinals owners - followed the lead of Gov. Matt Blunt by backing Mitt Romney, who finished nine percentage points behind Huckabee yesterday.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...
6 comments

Comments are closed.

Maybe Marshall can show Barack a thing or two about playing the field. 8 children with 4 women is a stellar accomplishment.

— Amazedbythelunacy
11:24 am January 4th, 2008

Can a parent hand their kid the cash to pass on to a campaign? I’m sure it happens, but is it legal?

My opinion is that it should be like funding an IRA. You have to have at least earned x amount in order to contribute x amount even if you spent your earnings and mom funded the IRA.

— Amazedbythelunacy
12:06 pm January 4th, 2008

Not only is it perfectly legal, but it is yet another reason why contribution limits are stupid.

— Jim (the republican)
1:54 pm January 4th, 2008

So a rich fella could give as much of his money as he wanted to a candidate, as long as he found a couple hundred different people to funnel the money through?

Wow. Didn’t think that would be right.

— Amazedbythelunacy
2:03 pm January 4th, 2008

Since the state adopted contribution limits in 1994 (voter-approved, ridiculous ones that were thrown out), I’ve been saying this.

The whole point of lifting the limits is to provide full disclosure on who is contributing how much to whom. Once you place limits, people find ways around it.

All contribution limits do is create headaches for those trying to “follow the money.”

They have never slowed the flow of money in politics. In fact, political campaigns have become exponentially more expensive since the original adoption of contribution limits.

— Jim (the republican)
2:36 pm January 4th, 2008

It is not legal for people to give money to anybody to give to a candidate. Parents and children are treated differently under the law.

Jim(R) is right - shows the stupidity of limits.

If Mr. Faulk wants to teach me about running in a football game - I figure he knows something about the subject. Mr. Faulk wants to tell me who he is voting for - fine but he doesn’t have any standing to have his opinion held in any higher regard than others I know.

— Jasonb
2:36 pm January 4th, 2008