DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on June 24, 2008, 05:42:23 AM
-
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91748755
The match between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain is shaping up as the most unevenly financed presidential race since 1972.
That's the year that Richard Nixon ran for re-election, raised unprecedented sums of money and spawned the campaign scandals that led Congress to enact public financing.
Obama announced on Thursday that he won't take public funds for the general-election campaign. McCain says he will. McCain will get more than $84 million from the government for the two-month fall campaign. But Obama's turbo-charged fundraising operation can leave that in the dust.
...................
Sen. Barack Obama this week blamed his decision to reject public financing on 527 groups that work on behalf of John McCain. Jonathan Martin of Politico says there really aren't any major 527s working against Obama. Michele Norris talks to Martin.
In 2007, when Sen. Obama was raising the money that was essential for him to become a serious candidate, "54 percent of his contributions came in contributions of a thousand dollars or more, and much of that money was raised by bundlers," he says
Bundlers are people who solicit friends and colleagues for checks that they bundle for delivery to the campaign. Wertheimer says Obama wouldn't be where he is without them.
"He has not created a parallel system of public financing," he says.
But Obama has created by far the largest system of small, voluntary donors that American politics has ever seen. It's changing the landscape for 2008 and beyond.
On Thursday, McCain immediately accused Obama of breaking his word. McCain's campaign said Obama had promised to negotiate with McCain so that they'd both take public money and limit spending by their national party committees.
-
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obama_fights_phantom_527_group.html
Sad lack of swift boat.
-
<<On Thursday, McCain immediately accused Obama of breaking his word. McCain's campaign said Obama had promised to negotiate with McCain so that they'd both take public money and limit spending by their national party committees.>>
For a promise that McCain regards as "a big deal, a very big deal," McCain is remarkably short on specifics - who made the promise, who was it made to, what were the exact words, when was it made and if it's "such a big deal," how come McCain didn't get it in writing?
Methinks he's as full of shit on this one as he is on his claims that he was "tortured" in Viet Nam.
-
For a promise that McCain regards as "a big deal, a very big deal," McCain is remarkably short on specifics - who made the promise, who was it made to, what were the exact words, when was it made and if it's "such a big deal," how come McCain didn't get it in writing?
The exact words, in writing, were:
I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold?s (DWI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (r-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.
Link to Document (http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7Bfb3c17e2-cdd1-4df6-92be-bd4429893665%7D/MDNNATIONALRELEASE.PDF)
Methinks he's as full of shit on this one as he is on his claims that he was "tortured" in Viet Nam.
Seems like you're the one "full of shit on this one".
-
It is not really true. The Republican Party is one thing, and the McCain for President Committee is another. The Republican Party, like any party, can receive more money per donor than the presidential campaign, and has whole bundles of money. Besides, considering the gargantuan and mlultiple f*ckups of the Juniorbush administration, it is hard to imagine why anyone would give them a dime. They DESERVE to be underfunded. No party has ever deserved so rotundly to go down in smoke and flames.
So let McCain bitch about the unfairness of it all. He likes being an underdog, away.
-
So it doesn't bother you that Obama's word is worth spit?
-
Absolutely ridiculous. He stated his position in November 2007 for an interested citizens' group and promised McCain nothing. In November 07, that was how he planned to pursue the issues of financing his campaign. As circumstances changed, his plans for financing changed.
I would hate like hell for someone like you to be the CFO for any public company in which I was invested. If you're so inflexible as to be unable to adapt your financing plans to the situational changes that your company encounters from one day to the next, I can foresee nothing but disaster for the company. Is that the kind of performance you'd expect to see from your President?
A guy like McCain who flip-flops from anti-torture to pro-torture, from anti-drilling to drilling, from the Christian Right as agents of intolerance to the Christian Right as someone whose endorsement must be sought - - I can see where this guy has serious consistency issues. No wonder he tries so desperately to build a mountain out of Obama's little molehill.
-
Obama has broken no laws, and you can be sure that if McCain had the same advantage as a fundraiser as Obama has, he would do the same thing. Being as McCain's wife is a zillionaire and the GOP has tons of money that they can spend on him, I don;t see this as any sort of unfair.
-
Absolutely ridiculous. He stated his position in November 2007 for an interested citizens' group and promised McCain nothing. In November 07, that was how he planned to pursue the issues of financing his campaign. As circumstances changed, his plans for financing changed.
He promised the people something, and then went back on his word.
I didn't make the pledge so your remarks about me carry no weight.
This isn't about McCain.
It is about Obama going back on his word.
-
This isn't about McCain.
It is about Obama going back on his word.
Is anyone really surprised? Hell, they're both putting out more flip-flops than Wal-Mart. PAU
-
The only thing that surprises me is the apparent double standard at play.
But to be truly honest that doesn't surprise as much as disappoint.
-
The only thing that surprises me is the apparent double standard at play.
But to be truly honest that doesn't surprise as much as disappoint.
I hear that BT. And you had such high hopes for this election.
-
The only thing that surprises me is the apparent double standard at play. But to be truly honest that doesn't surprise as much as disappoint.
Precisely. I've always been on record as stating candidates should be able to raise as much as they want, provided full disclosure of where the $$'s coming from. Obama should absolutely want to get the most bang for his buck, and optiong out is the right thing to do.
But Bt's nailed it on the head, both the double standard by those giving Obama a complete pass (outside of Brass), while decrying how terrible it was for Bush to have done so in the previous 2 election cycles, and in the disappointment that Obama is again demonstrating how he's simply just another politician
-
You don't get to be President by being anything other than a politician. It used to be a general could get in every so often, but that went the way of Eisenhower.
I wish people would realize that.
-
Why are there so few people interested in forming 527 groups in favor of McCain?
-
Why are there so few people interested in forming 527 groups in favor of McCain?
Because they'll be fined for doing so.
-
<<He promised the people something, and then went back on his word.>>
I guess then you must have been devastated when Bush promised a more humble foreign policy and then decided to invade Iraq with or without UN sanctions.
<<I didn't make the pledge so your remarks about me carry no weight.>>
So what? They were only about you for humorous purposes, their real target was anyone who thinks inflexibility is some kind of virtue in financial strategy. I never really anticipated that you would be the CFO of any company I would be invested in. The remarks carry a lot of weight because their import is that one would have to be very stupid to stick to a financial plan when circumstances show an alternative plan to be more advantageous. How Obama plans to finance his campaign is of secondary importance to what the campaign is for.
The only real animus behind all the anti-Obama carping that I can see is sour grapes - - the people are coughing up for Obama in massive numbers, out-contributing the relatively tiny handfuls of the ultra-rich who as individuals are contributing massively to McSame, but not massively enough to outweigh the voice of the people.
<<This isn't about McCain.>>
No? Who else is running against Obama?
<<It is about Obama going back on his word. >>
NO, actually, it's about Obama changing his plans on how he wants to finance his campaign. And about McSame not being able to follow suit because he doesn't have anywhere near the huge numbers of citizens ready, willing and eager to back him as there are for Obama.
-
The only real animus behind all the anti-Obama carping that I can see is sour grapes - - the people are coughing up for Obama in massive numbers, out-contributing the relatively tiny handfuls of the ultra-rich who as individuals are contributing massively to McSame, but not massively enough to outweigh the voice of the people.
You got some stats to back that up, or are you just pulling shit out of the air again?
-
I'm going with the AMBE option
-
<<You got some stats to back that up, or are you just pulling shit out of the air again?>>
Just applying a little common sense to some pretty well-known facts. If Obama wasn't raising bucketloads from small contributors on the internet, why'd he want to forgo public-purse campaign funding? If McSame were mining the same vein and taking out even more than Obama, why'd any of his right-wing pals give a shit what Obama was doing to raise money?
You got any state to contradict my conclusions or are you just sniping blindly and hoping to hit something?
-
You got any state to contradict my conclusions or are you just sniping blindly and hoping to hit something?
Didn't think it was supposed to be my job to support or not support your arguments.
However, according to opensecrets.org, Obama is out raising McCain by tapping into big donors. He has twice as many $4,600 donors (the maximum amount you can contribute) as McCain. So, I don't think that he's out raising McCain by getting money from the "little guy" as you imply.
-
NO, actually, it's about Obama changing his plans on how he wants to finance his campaign.
Obama should have left himself some wiggle room. Shows poor judgment in making promises that he might not fulfill, especially before being elected. After he is elected national interests supercede perasonal interests, which is what happened with Bush after he took office.
-
NO, actually, it's about Obama changing his plans on how he wants to finance his campaign.
Obama should have left himself some wiggle room. Shows poor judgment in making promises that he might not fulfill, especially before being elected.
Nooo?......poor Judgement?.......Obama? Say it ain't so ;)
-
<<However, according to opensecrets.org, Obama is out raising McCain by tapping into big donors. He has twice as many $4,600 donors (the maximum amount you can contribute) as McCain. So, I don't think that he's out raising McCain by getting money from the "little guy" as you imply.>>
Do you know what "bundlers" are?
-
Do you know what "bundlers" are?
Yes I do .
But why are the big boys absent for McCain?
-
Do you know what "bundlers" are?
Yes. However, the bundled transactions are still recorded individually. If they're not, then the bundlers are breaking the law, as they are acting like a PAC but not registered as such.
If I take a set of checks from Jim, Joe, and Cindy and turn them in, I'm a "bundler". The donations are still recorded as being $X from Jim, $Y from Joe, and $Z from Cindy.
-
Well, thanks, I didn't realize that the bundled donations still were recorded individually.
In any event, my sense is that the $4.6K donations are coming in from the middle classes and not from the top 0.5 to 2% of the population, which is where McCain would have found his natural base. From the soccer moms and not from the empire inheritors.
-
In any event, my sense is that the $4.6K donations are coming in from the middle classes and not from the top 0.5 to 2% of the population, which is where McCain would have found his natural base. From the soccer moms and not from the empire inheritors.
ROFL
I know of very few "soccer moms" who will give $4,600 to a politician.
$4,600 donations come from the well to do.
-
Well, thanks, I didn't realize that the bundled donations still were recorded individually.
In any event, my sense is that the $4.6K donations are coming in from the middle classes and not from the top 0.5 to 2% of the population, which is where McCain would have found his natural base. From the soccer moms and not from the empire inheritors.
Why are these particular guys so inactive this time?
-
I beg to differ, I know plenty of soccer moms who can afford to shell out $4,600 for a political cause. Soccer kids need uniforms, special cleated footwear, refs and coaches - - it's not a game that North American parents typically can teach their children. It's a big step up from basketball (financially) although probably not as expensive as ice hockey. Most of the soccer moms I know have their kids in private schools.
-
I beg to differ, I know plenty of soccer moms who can afford to shell out $4,600 for a political cause. Soccer kids need uniforms, special cleated footwear, refs and coaches - - it's not a game that North American parents typically can teach their children. It's a big step up from basketball (financially) although probably not as expensive as ice hockey. Most of the soccer moms I know have their kids in private schools.
So we are talking about the upper middle class again?
I can see someone giving a weeks pay to a campaign if they are really committed , but not a months pay.
So we are not talking about a Wall Mart clerk or even manager.
-
Most of the soccer moms I know have their kids in private schools.
Most of the private schools in the US charge less than $4,600 per year. So, it's like having a whole 'nother kid to pay for.
-
No normal middle class person is likely to donate $4K to any politician.
I imagine no sane person would do this, either.
But I imagine that a person who was assured that they'd make $100,000 would be happy to do this.