Shared publicly  - -- these are the actual numbers.

(EDIT: note that this is the cumulated amount for donations coming from employees of these companies, not the companies themselves, but I that's arguably even more telling. Source:
Dong ho Kang's profile photoSeongHo Park's profile photoVladimir Stepanov's profile photoyahim stnsc's profile photo
I like how when I go to your site, the Google Adsense ad at the bottom is a Romney campaign ad. :-D
The two lists are very telling in themselves! Where one list is all banker, investment, and business related... and the other is intellectual, educational, innovative and progressive.
Interesting point is the positioning of the two as well... where the left is on the left 
Hmmmm... This definitely changed my views!!!
Note that these are not from the companies themselves, but from people reporting that they work for those companies. Which I think is even more telling :-)
US Government spends Money for the president? I didn't even know that was possible.

Whatever – interesting numbers, all of them.
Welcome to What's Hot Express with non-stop service to What's Hot.
Just adding: I'm not an American citizen but just a follower of world events.
But!!! +Manu Cornet this really changed my views!!! :)
I'd love to reshare it, but I see no source what so ever in there :(
So its the employess of the Business and not the Business themselves. A list like this can easily get misconstrued.
+Kamal Singh This is not contributions from the banks, but from their employees. An alternative interpretation to "they're both corrupt" is "the bank employees realised Obama's policies aren't in their employer's interests", which would indicate that Obama isn't corrupt. :-)
+Ian Hickson I feel now a little bit retarded, but thanks for google results anyway :)
Interesting, but ultimately not meaningful to compare these numbers. The US government employs millions of people and Citigroup employs less then 300K. The University of California has less than 100K employees. Wall Mart, the largest private employer in the US doesn't make the list. We don't really know from this list whether a large number of people gave small donations or a small number of people donated the max. We also don't know how evenly the number of donors or amounts donated may have split at a company. Thousands of BofA tellers could have donated $50 bucks each and only a few hundred execs donated the max, and this list would still work. Stanford could be evenly split and not be in the top ten on the right. Wearing my Data Scientist cap, I have to not only declare this report to be ill-conceived, but also would point to it as a warning about the misleading conclusions we can draw from "big data" when we just look at numbers without context. 
That's pretty funny. It all makes sense now. :)
Except for GE, not a single University nor Technology company in the top 20 donors for Romney  (ca. 70% coded ref., The numbers bring about some hope for humankind,  in by which, the majority of educated people refuse to make money strictly out of money - even being so trivial for us to code strictly for money making, we rather do it for and by humans.  A network analysis Nature paper is at sight. On your marks. go! :)
Neither rich bankers with spare income for political donations, nor rich young educated academics and techies with spare income for political donations, represent the majority of voters or their interests. Unfortunately, most voters don't have money to waste on buying yachts for PR companies and local TV station owners.
+Richard Merren I'm confused. What do you think this graphic is trying to show? I think it's trying to show where private donations come from, in which case sorting by money is exactly the right way to do it.

As an aside, I think the fact that WalMart's employees don't even make the list says a lot more about WalMart than this data.
Real numbers, but not an actual indication of where the most money is coming from. This is "contributions from people reporting they work for companies" but none of the line items are over a million. You should show the entities using complicated loopholes to give tens of millions.
+Abrak Jamson Those entities are, by definition, much harder to track. While this isn't a full picture of all the money in play, it is still interesting to see how individual contributions break out.

+Manu Cornet You might want to adjust the comic and/or metadata to explicitly say that these are individual donors, grouped by self-reported employer. A casual reader could easily think that these are donations from the listed entity.
+David Guild Do you mean people contributing to super PACs? Or contributing to the actual campaigns?
+Ian Hickson I think this is just people contributing to actual campaigns - but you may be asking the wrong person about that.
Sorry for the late response, the magic of time zones (from Shanghai with lots of love :) ). Thanks +Erica Joy , added the source (seems pretty legit to me), thanks +Ian Hickson for linking to it first! +Richard Merren I very much agree it is risky to try and draw precise conclusions from these numbers. Still, I think the fact that the top donors are, for Romney, all banks, carries at least some meaning. And as +C.A. Palma notes, not having a single university or technology company (except GE) in the top 20 donors for Romney show (in my opinion) that this really can't be pure statistical bias. The differences are too obvious not to have some truth to them? +Abrak Jamson very good point, indeed, I'm not sure if those figures are public, though (if even discoverable at all by anyone)? I still think this is rather telling on its own.
+David Guild There's pretty strict limits on what individuals can contribute and how it is reported, so I don't know what else there would be (regarding what you and +Abrak Jamson refer to above).
+David Guild I am just saying it is difficult to conclude anything from this data. You have to apply data not present on the report to draw any conclusions. I wonder what these lists would look like as a ranking of top ten (and why is it only 8?) sorted by donations per capita...the US government wouldn't even be on the list, and U Cal would probably slide off as well. Is this list skewed toward organizations that are either very large or which have a high proportion of upper-ncome earners compared to the rest of the pool? If we cranked it up to the top twenty or fifty, would we still think there was a big difference between the two lists or would they converge a bit? I'm not calling shenanigans or claiming any dishonesty here...I just think we are looking at some raw numbers which (as the comments demonstrate) allow people to draw conclusions which may not hold up to further scrutiny. You can argue that this is their fault and they shouldn't draw this conclusion I'd you like--I am just saying as a professional who creates these kind of reports for companies to use for decision making, I find this report to be an incomplete picture of the data which looks like a complete one and I would recommend it not be used to draw any conclusions.

Also: I knew Romney was a douche without the assistance of this data.
How does the US government and state schools have budgets to donate to Obama? Just curious why they could not give more? 
+ted FiSKi As stated in the edited post, these are donations from employees, not the companies themselves. Sorry I should have made that clear in the comic itself.
Alright, how do the employees have so much money? I thought the education sector was always broke. Or is that just a UK thing :)
OMFG Obama sold his soul to evil Microsoft. I shall vote for Romney then.
Obvious lies are obvious lies.
+Tony Watson That's from 2008. Back then the banks were trying to buy off both candidates. This time they apparently have decided they didn't get their money's worth with Obama. That's a pretty good sign, IMHO.
Bien trouve mon Manu, si seulement tout le monde le savait !
Add a comment...