Obama Flip Flops on Campaign Financing

[marite]

<p>Re: #78: Don’t know. I suppose the ad was created earlier. This is hot off the press, so to speak.</p>

<p>

MoveOn, the advocacy group supporting Barack Obama, has decided to permanently shutter its 527 operation, partly in response to the Illinois Senator’s insistence that such groups should not spend on his behalf during the general election, I’ve learned from the group’s spokesperson.</p>

<p>MoveOn’s decision, which will dramatically impact the way it raises money on Obama’s behalf, is yet another sign of how rapidly Obama is taking control of the apparatus that’s gearing up on his behalf.</p>

<p>By shuttering its 527, MoveOn is effectively killing its ability to raise money in huge chunks from labor unions, foundations, and big donors who would give over $5,000. The decision doesn’t mean MoveOn will stop spending on Obama’s behalf. Instead it will raise money exclusively with its political action committee, whose average donation is below $50 and will even be raising money with things like bake sales starting this weekend.

</p>

<p>[TPM</a> Election Central | Talking Points Memo | Exclusive: MoveOn To Close Its 527 In Response To Obama’s Candidacy](<a href=“http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/moveon_to_close_its_527.php]TPM”>http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/moveon_to_close_its_527.php)</p>

<p>And a very interesting story about lack of fund for GOP 527 efforts:</p>

<p>

In a web video emailed to supporters Thursday, Barack Obama explained that he was opting out of the public financing system because John McCain is “not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.”</p>

<p>Republicans can only wish that were the case.</p>

<p>Obama’s alarmist prophecy — a bit of typical campaign rhetoric meant to scare his own donors into reaching for their credit cards — is wildly at odds with the flatlined state of conservative third-party efforts.</p>

<p>The truth is that, less than five months before Election Day, there are no serious anti-Obama 527s in existence nor are there any immediate plans to create such a group.</p>

<p>Conversations with more than a dozen Republican strategists find near unanimity in the belief that, at some point, there will be a real third-party effort aimed at Obama.</p>

<p>But not one knows who will run it, who will pay for it, what shape it will eventually take or when such a group may form.</p>

<p>More worrisome for Republicans who believe such an outside attack apparatus is essential to defeating Obama, some key individuals and groups who were being looked to for help say they won’t be involved.

[Broke:</a> GOP third-party effort nonexistent - Politico.com Print View](<a href=“http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=A4416D05-3048-5C12-009DB0481F25202A]Broke:”>http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=A4416D05-3048-5C12-009DB0481F25202A)</p>

[pmrlcomm]

<p>Maybe we’ll get lucky and they will all just go away.</p>

[cartera45]

<p>Move On is not going anywhere.</p>

[pmrlcomm]

<p>That’s too bad.</p>

[Westcoastmon]

<p>Sometimes, I imagine better uses for these fund raising efforts than spending them on a political campaign. Just think about what good could be accomplished with this amount of money.</p>

[cartera45]

<p>Yes, I feel that way about the $600 billion spent on Iraq.</p>

[cartera45]

<p>When these posts gets switched, things don’t make sense.</p>

[pmrlcomm]

<p>

Yes, I feel that way about the $600 billion spent on Iraq.

</p>

<p>Would be nice but now that it’s broke…it has to be fixed.</p>

<p>

Sometimes, I imagine better uses for these fund raising efforts than spending them on a political campaign. Just think about what good could be accomplished with this amount of money.

</p>

<p>I think about the money and I wonder how much it would be if we all added it up. I think we would be disappointed by how much, if you broke it down for each person in this country, it would actually be. I do agree it could be used for better purposes.</p>

<p>That’s why I use a lot of quotes, otherwise it gets very confusing…I agree.</p>

[BedHead]

<p>

Would be nice but now that it’s broke…it has to be fixed.

</p>

<p>Oh here we go again… The fix is not a military one.</p>

[BedHead]

<p>

^yep. BHO is nothing if not “savvy,” but he just might be better off in a lot of voters’ eyes if <em>he’d</em> drop the sanctimony, already. He’s a presidential candidate, not me! It’s the duplicity in continually behaving and speaking as though he’s above it all and then doing the exact opposite which is actually starting to become nauseating. I can see why you’re angry, bedhead, I would be also, if BHO were my candidate. He’s messed up big-time in a number of ways, people are beginning to see through him (if they haven’t already) and when the press’ idealistic bubble really bursts (which has already begun), it’s really going to get ugly. Don’t shoot the messenger, please. No one is going to change their mind about BHO based on what I say!

</p>

<p>Well, you are rabidly anti-Obama, or at least clearly so, so when you shed tears that Obama has broken a promise (which was a very hedged promise by the way), I see nothing wrong with pointing out that they are crocodile tears. I wasn’t attacking you but for your stated positions in this forum.</p>

<p>I feel the same way about the (likely) feigned disgust in this post. But I don’t know this poster’s attitudes. Maybe he/she is in fact a disgruntled former Obama supporter. I don’t know. I just seriously doubt it:</p>

<p>

So when Obama speaks about “change” he really means saying one thing one day and saying something else on another day.</p>

<p>He pretends to be something different, but in reality the man is no different than any other politician. All of the huffing and puffing about “campaign finance reform” blah blah blah, but when it’s crunch time he takes a walk. Change you can believe in. Sure.

</p>

[mini]

<p>Yup. Start with supporting the 4.4 million refugees and those ethnically cleansed by the so-called “surge” (read: increase in hostile, aggressive occupation forces) for the next 10 years, and accept at least 500,000 refugees into the U.S., and providing funds to Syria, Jordan, and Iran (yes, Iran) to help mitigate the U.S.-caused humanitarian disaster. </p>

<p>Then we can deal with what the “military leader of the ground” - General Bequoba - after 18 months of investigations on behalf of the U.S. military - calls our “war crimes”.</p>

[BedHead]

<p>^^^</p>

<p>Amen, Mini. What has gotten very little play in the media over the past couple of days – shockingly little – is that a two-star general (retired) has deemed that the Bush Administration committed war crimes.</p>

[tega]

<p>As Ben wrote on politico:</p>

<p>“It’s a bit of a symbolic move: The group’s attacks on McCain have largely come through its PAC, and some of the groups that have helped MoveOn finance ads in the past – notably labor unions – have 527s of their own they’ve used on TV this cycle.”</p>

<p>They are still going to operate through their PAC. The obfuscation by Obama on this issue is bit disconcerting.</p>

<p>OBAMA: “Well, I strongly support public financing. And I know [Senator] Dick [Durbin] does too. He’s going to have some things to say about it because when we were having – as you’ll recall – the major debates around lobbying reform, one of the things that Dick, I think, properly pointed out was that you can change the rules on lobbying here in Washington, but if we’re still getting financed primarily from individual contributions, that those with the most money are still going to have the most influence.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Constituents Breakfast, 6/29/06)</p>

<p>Obama, just rhetoric with no substance.</p>

[vicariousparent]

<p>Despite being an Obama supporter, I agree with those who say that he ‘broke his word’ on this issue. Early on in the campaign, he did ‘promise’ to use public funds. Now he has discovered that his internet based fundraising is bringing him huge amounts of money from supporters WITH NO STRINGS ATTACHED.</p>

<p>The key reason why Obama’s flip-flop is not of any concern to me is that his fundraising is almost entirely from people who have absolutely no ulterior motive other than seeing him get elected. The whole problem with money in elections is that politicians accept money from special interest groups and lobbyists who then dictate the administration’s agenda. Obama does not accept money from federal lobbyists and most of his money comes from small private donors who send a few hundred dollars at most, and these people have no agenda other than seeing him get elected. It is really a grassroots campaign. </p>

<p>I hope Obama can out-raise and out-spend McCain and I hope that helps him get elected. That is what matters.</p>

[tega]

<p>

Obama does not accept money from federal lobbyists and most of his money comes from small private donors who send a few hundred dollars at most, and these people have no agenda other than seeing him get elected. It is really a grassroots campaign.

</p>

<p>[url=<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/19/AR2008061903027.html]washingtonpost.com[/url”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/19/AR2008061903027.html]washingtonpost.com[/url</a>]</p>

[cartera45]

<p>Tega, I had no idea you agreed with vicariousparent on that point.</p>

[tega]

<p>Cartera45, No I don’t agree with vicariousparent, the small donors statement is not accurate. I am still looking for an article that I read a couple of weeks ago about Obama’s fundraising. The percentage of those donating less than $200 was small, not anywhere near the figures given by the Obama campaign.</p>

[BedHead]

<p>Tega: The article you cite proves exactly what I said, though it points out that the system is broken. As I said above, the system is broken. I wouldn’t want Obama playing to the rules of an ideal system that DOESN’T exist when McCain has already broken the rules of the system that DOES exist.</p>

<p>Here are the top organizations REPRESENTED BY THE SMALL DONORS that collectively have given to Obama. When one makes a political donation, one must also list where one works. So, collectively, the top small donors are from these organizations:</p>

<p>Barack Obama (D)
Top Contributors
This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization’s PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.</p>

<p>Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization’s members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY’s List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers.</p>

<p>Goldman Sachs $571,330
University of California $437,236
UBS AG $364,806
JPMorgan Chase & Co $362,207
Citigroup Inc $358,054
National Amusements Inc $320,750
Lehman Brothers $318,647
Google Inc $309,514
Harvard University $309,025
Sidley Austin LLP $294,245
Skadden, Arps et al $270,013
Time Warner $262,677
Morgan Stanley $259,876
Jones Day $250,725
Exelon Corp $236,211
University of Chicago $218,857
Wilmerhale LLP $218,680
Latham & Watkins $218,615
Microsoft Corp $209,242
Stanford University $195,262</p>

<p>John McCain (R)
Top Contributors
This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization’s PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.</p>

<p>Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization’s members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY’s List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers.</p>

<p>Merrill Lynch $230,310
Citigroup Inc $219,551
Blank Rome LLP $189,226
Greenberg Traurig LLP $157,487
AT&T Inc $153,005
Goldman Sachs $139,520
Morgan Stanley $136,651
JPMorgan Chase & Co $129,400
Credit Suisse Group $110,725
Lehman Brothers $96,050
UBS AG $93,815
US Government $91,551
Bank of New York Mellon $87,500
IDT Corp $83,150
Blackstone Group $82,600
Bear Stearns $79,900
Wachovia Corp $76,725
MGM Mirage $76,050
Univision Communications $75,700
PricewaterhouseCoopers $71,050</p>

<p>Now, McCain is going with public financing. Don’t try to tell me this is because he has scruples about the public financing system (though he did make a valiant effort in this area years ago, I would be the first to point out). He is not having much luck raising money.</p>

[mini]

<p>“Amen, Mini. What has gotten very little play in the media over the past couple of days – shockingly little – is that a two-star general (retired) has deemed that the Bush Administration committed war crimes.”</p>

<p>Yup. Can’t trust those “generals on the ground”. The current one, the AKLCS, “loses” $190 million in military equipment and arms Al-Qaeda, the second one finds evidence of U.S. war crimes.</p>

<p>[Taguba:</a> Bush administration tortured detainees, ‘committed war crimes’ - On Deadline - USATODAY.com](<a href=“http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/06/taguba-bush-adm.html?csp=34]Taguba:”>http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/06/taguba-bush-adm.html?csp=34)</p>

<p>What will think of next?</p>

[vicariousparent]

<p>tega: That article makes some valid points but also has some fallacies. For example, I don’t think that $200 has to be the cutoff to call someone a ‘small donor’. However, even a wealthy individual who contributes $2300 to Obama via his website is doing it with no strings attached. It is also a fallacy that if ‘employees of xx company’ contributed a large sum of money then it follows that the company is the one contributing. I have also seen people add up the number of people who belong to a certain industry (eg all lawyers, all employees of insurance companies) and then claim that those industries are making the contributions. That is all BS. Fact is, individuals from all walks of life are making donations, big and small, to Obama with absolutely no expectation of anything in return.</p>