<p>
</p>
<p>[Contribution</a> Limits Chart 2007-08](<a href=“Help for candidates and committees | FEC”>Help for candidates and committees | FEC)</p>
<p>I thought the limit was lower than $2,300, but it is in fact $2,300 – and no individual can give more.</p>
<p>These big dinners etc. either raise “big money” through bundling or they give money to the parties not directly to the campaigns.</p>
<p>I think the big dinners, etc… go to the respective Nationa Committee’s, for the most part.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I find this way of calculating corporate donations deeply flawed.</p>
<p>I have trouble believing that the various universities listed as donors actually did so as entitities or that their administrations urged their profs and staff to vote one way or another. Many profs are liberals, so it’s no surprise that many contributed to Obama (duh! what a discovery!)
I assume that a lot of federal employees contribute to one or the other candidate, would the federal government be listed as a donor to this or that candidate?</p>
<p>One reason I’m not as upset with Obama’s flipflop as I would have in other years is the $2,300 cap. It does curb the ability of lobbyists to influence candidates and policy.</p>
<p>EDIT: I seem to be making the same point as vicariousparent.<br>
On the No-string attached issue, I may or may not reach the cap. But my contribution has no string attached to it; it’s also made through the website, in increments.</p>
<p>100 million people were killed worldwide in the 20th century in wars (including 20 miillion by Stalin.)</p>
<p>“I find this way of calculating corporate donations deeply flawed.”</p>
<p>So do I. It’s ridiculous. My personal contribution is not a contribution from the legal industry. If I quit my job tomorrow to become a beachcomber, it wouldn’t suddenly become a contribution on behalf of the unemployed.</p>
<p>I don’t see what is so bad about “flip flopping.” I did it. When GWB said that the Iraqis had WMDs I supported the war, as information came out I now vehemently oppose it. </p>
<p>I believe that we should vote for leaders who we think will make good decisions based on the information available. Accusing someone of flip flopping is assuming that once people make a decision they absolutely need to stick by it even if overwhelming evidence comes in to the contrary.</p>
<p>I agree, D. Opinions & stances SHOULD change as the landscape changes & more info becomes available.</p>
<p>But just to change positions for political expediency when no new/different facts have come to light isn’t such a good thing.</p>
<p>Re: Obama, what has actually changed since his initial stance?</p>
<p>What changed is that Obama found out he can raise loads of money with no strings attached AND without spending limits. Nobody could have anticipated this huge groundswell of grassroots support by ordinary people with hope…and checkbooks.</p>
<p>You can call all his supporters delusional if you like, but you can’t deny that they are simply trying to get him elected. They are not trying to buy influence in a future administration.</p>
<p>That is where the political expediency comes in… I don’t have a problem with what he did but at least call it what it is…opportunistic. There were no changes to the rules of the game, McCain didn’t decline to meet with Obama to discuss public financing…it was soley because it was to his benefit to do so. Hope he doesn’t change his mind in the future when it is to his benefit and no one elses.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As a matter of fact, I completely agree with you, but I was just looking at the numbers to give an idea. The fact is that one of the campaign reform requirements at one point was to provide information about the organizations for which you work because it is true that some companies do gently coerce people to give.</p>
<p>Regarding your statements about the universities, I was actually happy to provide Obama’s list because there are at least several entities there that would have no way of coercing their employees to give to Obama. Namely University of California, Harvard, Stanford, U. Chicago, etc. When I read Obama’s list, this difference stood out to me actually.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have a problem with the system that gives rise to this, I really do. Until that system is reformed – I think that will be through blanket public financing (which apparently is probably unconstitutional), though, I don’t think he has much choice. Plus, the RNC has tons more than the DNC, so there is actually going to be more parity here than the campaigns’ numbers themselves suggest. </p>
<p>I’ll grant you, P’comm, you are fair-minded. Kudos to you. So when you make blanket statements about liberals, I’ll wince a bit less. ;)</p>
<p>By the way, I see Obama’s moves as opportunistic, and I think he could have characterized his about-face more forthrightly. One thing that I am sure he didn’t foresee – I don’t think anybody did – is what a groundswell of popular giving there has been to his campaign’s benefit.</p>
<p>I think the chart posted here really shows why the public financing would not work and would give McCain an unfair advantage:
[Contribution</a> Limits Chart 2007-08](<a href=“Help for candidates and committees | FEC”>Help for candidates and committees | FEC)</p>
<p>As you can see, an individual can give only $2300 to a candidate, but they can give $28,500 to the national party. So McCain can accept public financing, get $85 million, and then direct big money supporters to give directly to the GOP – and the GOP can run as many ads as they want – and a $28K donation is big enough to warrant some serious attention from the party in terms of shaping its agenda, especially if that is multiplied within a particular business or industry. </p>
<p>So, given the current 2-party system, where one party is mostly aligned with business & corporate interests, while the other party tends to be aligned with less-monied interests – this system of rules is tailor made to benefit the party that is better funded. Just looking at the respective positions of the candidates on tax issues tells you which party is the one the big money donors will tend to favor, assuming that everyone is looking out for their own economic interests. </p>
<p>Do you think that the GOP would have been willing to agree to limit its spending as part of a McCain/Obama agreement on public financing? And if the GOP wouldn’t have been party to that, then what would be the point of Obama trying to negotiate something with McCain? </p>
<p>I mean, look at this way: McCain flies around in his wife’s corporate jet without having to pay for it, because of a loophole in the McCain-Feingold act that means he doesn’t have to report that as a campaign contribution:
[McCain</a> Frequently Used Wife’s Jet for Little Cost - New York Times](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/us/politics/27plane.html?ex=1367121600&en=834233c3d4aa4c80&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink]McCain”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/us/politics/27plane.html?ex=1367121600&en=834233c3d4aa4c80&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink)</p>
<p>I don’t think that’s a big deal - I’m just pointing to that as one indication that McCain is going to take full advantage of what the law allows – and in his case his public money is going to be bolstered by a benefit (party money) that isn’t available to Obama.</p>
<p>Just curious, [Republicans</a> Hammer Obama for Sidestepping Public Funds - America’s Election HQ](<a href=“2024 Election Results, Latest News & Updates | Fox News Elections Center”>2024 Election Results, Latest News & Updates | Fox News Elections Center)</p>
<p>“Though McCain is set to take public financing for the fall election, the Democrat Party plans to file a new lawsuit to compel federal regulators to investigate whether McCain violated election laws by withdrawing from public financing during the primary.”</p>
<p>Do people think “Democrat Party” was just a mindless error?</p>
<p>Admittedly that whole system is broken. I would love it if each candidate was given x number of ads, x number of live infomercial type sessions and the debates (all gratis). Everything else had to be done face to face or through grass roots. I know that is pie in the sky but what the hay!</p>
<p>Caus typoes nevar hapen. What is the difference between Democrat and Democratic aside from the obvious spelling difference. Or is there supposed to be some hidden code by just using Democrat? And I’ve drawn references to conspiracy theorists?</p>
<p>I have never seen the term “Democrat Party” used in a way that wasn’t derogatory, have you? It was an innocent question - I never proclaimed that typoes never happen (especially when it comes to Fox News. I am so offended by many of their mistakes that I have offered my editing services free of charge, but have received no callbacks.)</p>
<p><a href=“especially%20when%20it%20comes%20to%20Fox%20News.%20I%20am%20so%20offended%20by%20many%20of%20their%20mistakes%20that%20I%20have%20offered%20my%20editing%20services%20free%20of%20charge,%20but%20have%20received%20no%20callbacks.”>quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Classic…good one.</p>
<p>I’ve only seen it when it has been mistakenly used or misspelled…I’ve never seen it used in any malicious form.</p>
<p>Wikipedia has a page about the phrase, good thing wikipedia has all the answers!</p>
<p>Hah! I was wrong. Apparently it can be considered a disparaging remark. Shows you how much I’m in the club…</p>
<p>This issue is interesting because usually on this board, pro-obama and anti-obama, (I still don’t believe their is such a thing as pro-mccain people, he’s just the alternate) , people polarize with adamant support or opposition on every little thing. </p>
<p>On this issue, everybody agrees that he was very politician-like in the way he maneuvered around public financing, but everybody also agrees that it was the best decision, fair, and almost necessary.</p>
<p>I think in the end this isn’t a game changer as far as voting goes. But since this means Obama has enough money to run a 50 state strategy, it’s a win for him.</p>
<p>I’ve tried to pay attention to why this is such a big deal. I agree that he changed his mind about accepting money. I wouldn’t necessarily call it flip flopping because I like him 
But my question is why is McCain so upset by it? Why doesn’t McCain just go out and raise his own money?</p>
<p>Does the fact that McCain thinks he can’t raise as much money as Obama can say something about who is supporting each candidate?</p>
<p>Honestly…I’m just asking.</p>