Obama Brand: Truth or Consequences

[metta 0]

I don't like the campaing funding idea at all Steve. I don't think people should be elected on the strength of their ability to raise funds. Being a good fund raiser and being a good politician are not exactly interchangeable states.

The public funding ideal is still a good one, it's the way elections take place and the absolutely crazy sums of money that are spent on them that are completely wrong in my opinion.

As for the 'he didn't expect...' argument, yes, he's choosing expediency over principles. I get that, do you?

Well, I agree with PH. I am all for public financing. Infact I'd like to go furhter and place time limits on campaigns which is also a driver of campaign costs.

" Had I known then what I know now..." argument smacks of HRC on Iraq. is that not the big no no that was held against her?

[HAL 9000 96]

Steve , youy're arguing that most of Obama's donors are small donors i.e. public. yes at this point his campaign claims 80% ( don't have time to dig up source but I noted earlier that the portion of small donors jumped from 28% to 80% almost overnight. Once they claim small donors, I understand that the names need not be reported. I wonder how many of the small donors were employees of big business or unbundled donors. I am not being cynical here because you know and i know that in this 200 year old, mature democracy , we still have dead people donating to campaigns and voting for their favorite candidates By the way, I read in recent news that Obama is courting Hillary's big money donors to contribute to his campaign. Tthat means he is not shunning big money.

Are you in favor of public financing for presidential campaigns? If so, how many times did you check the box on your IRS forms?

Voluntary public financing was a noble idea to get big money out of the presidential campaigns, but it's not the end all answer. Our current campaign finance laws limit the amount an individual donor can give to a candidate to $2,000 per election. Now if we were to assume your theory that it's really big donors getting individuals to contribute on their behalf (which is illegal), then why are the averaging about $100?

When Obama signed on to public financing, he had no idea (no one did) that his campaign would be able to raise the kind of money they did from small donors. It had never been done before...most Americans just never gave to campaigns before. Howard Dean showed the potential 4 years ago when he ran. When a large number of voting Americans are involved in the bulk of the financing of these campaigns, we have succeeded further than what public financing had set out to do...because this way, each American gets to choose which candidate they are donating to. That to me is remarkable and inspirational.

As for any large donors - Obama will and should be under heavy scrutiny over those donors, but I'm not aware of who those donors are. I know that Hillary Clinton had donations from people like Rupert Murdoch and Walmart - two donors that most Democrats would not look upon favorably.

To me that points out something about what people are looking for in Washington.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

FWIW....

S 27 McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill in a Nutshell

1. Ban on Soft Money Contributions to Political Parties National parties, including congressional campaign committees, are banned from receiving soft money donations. State and local parties use of soft money is restricted when there is a federal candidate on the ballot.
2. Hard Money Contribution Limits for Federal Elections IncreasedIndividual contributions to candidates increase from $1000 per election to $2000, and contributions to parties increase from $20,000 to $25,000. Both limits will be increased over time to reflect the consumer price index. The current $5000 contribution limit to PACs remains unchanged. The annual total individual limit is increased from $25,000 to $37,500, and indexed to inflation. These limits are increased when a candidate faces an opponent finances his or her campaign with personal funds.
3. Issue Advocacy ProhibitionsCorporations, including nonprofits, and labor unions are banned from broadcasting messages that include a federal candidate's name or image within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, caucus or party convention. 501©(4) social welfare organizations and 527 political action committees can broadcast such ads if the audience is not made up primarily of residents of the state where the named candidate is running. Only donations from individuals can be used to pay for the ads. If over $10,000 is spent expenditures and donors must be disclosed to the FEC. An alternative provision provided if the 60/30 day ban is declared unconstitutional.
4. Coordination With Federal Candidates and Political PartiesAn expenditure becomes a prohibited contribution when made at the request of a candidate or party, or in cooperation with them. The FEC is directed to develop detailed regulations on coordination within 90 days of the bill taking effect.
5. Independent ExpendituresCommunications that expressly advocate election or defeat of a federal candidate are not subject to contribution limits if they are not coordinated with candidates or parties. The new, narrower definition of coordination will apply in defining what qualifies as an independent expenditure, and new reporting requirements are imposed. The bill also bans coordination with other groups if they have coordinated with a candidate or party.
6. Media Broadcast TimeBroadcasters, including satellite and cable providers, are required to provide federal candidates and national political parties with the lowest rate charged for the same amount of time during the past year.
7. Fundraising501© organizations are banned from receiving funds from political parties. Federal officeholders cannot raise funds for federal election activity for outside organizations unless the funds are subject to FEC regulation.
8. Clean Money Election Study The Comptroller General is directed to conduct a study of public financing of state elections in Arizona and Maine, to be completed within one year of the effective date of the act.

http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/231/1/3/

[Dan J 277]

All this is true but the question is no longer "is Barack he best nominee for the Democrats", but whether you want someone who stands for Democractic ideals or Repubican ideals come election day?

I do think though, that I would like to see some of the stalwart supporters of Barack recognize that these are serious issues and not just brush them aside as propoganda.

Amen to the first paragraph. As for the second, I don't see what the big issue is when Obama merely furthers his chances to win in November. That's what this is: a simple calculation. Will the benefit of a larger war chest outweigh the fallout from the reversal on this issue? The answer is yes and therefore the reversal took place. I fail to see what's so outrageous about Obama being a politician that runs a campaign which has the ultimate goal of winning him the Presidency.

In the end, I think Obama's position in not taking public financing will probably have little overall perceptual impact on the race. In a pure strategic sense, It is the best decision for him to make.

Some will complain, but many of those complaining, likely have a grudge against Obama for whatever reason, or have made up their mind to vote for McCain.

The impact this will have on undecided voters, is probably small compared to other issues, like Race and Reverend Wright.

[HAL 9000 96]

All this is true but the question is no longer "is Barack he best nominee for the Democrats", but whether you want someone who stands for Democractic ideals or Repubican ideals come election day?

I do think though, that I would like to see some of the stalwart supporters of Barack recognize that these are serious issues and not just brush them aside as propoganda.

Amen to the first paragraph. As for the second, I don't see what the big issue is when Obama merely furthers his chances to win in November. That's what this is: a simple calculation. Will the benefit of a larger war chest outweigh the fallout from the reversal on this issue? The answer is yes and therefore the reversal took place. I fail to see what's so outrageous about Obama being a politician that runs a campaign which has the ultimate goal of winning him the Presidency.

In the end, I think Obama's position in not taking public financing will probably have little overall perceptual impact on the race. In a pure strategic sense, It is the best decision for him to make.

Some will complain, but many of those complaining, likely have a grudge against Obama for whatever reason, or have made up their mind to vote for McCain.

The impact this will have on undecided voters, is probably small compared to other issues, like Race and Reverend Wright.

A Redundancy that is unfortunately lost on many a subjects.

Edited June 25, 2008 by maviwaro

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Given that campaign finance reform is a big issue, and has been for a while now - you'd think that a politician promising to "clean up Washington" (a reformer in other words) would be willing to hold himself to some sort of strict ethical standard - especially on things like this. PH is perfectly correct to say that this is expediency over principle...

The problem with this is that Obama is in effect saying that these internet donations are as clean as accepting the public funds. I see the advantage for him in accepting more money over less - but changing the definition of "public funds" to suit your own needs is pretty weak tea IMO.

Edited June 25, 2008 by Number 6

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Given that campaign finance reform is a big issue, and has been for a while now - you'd think that a politician promising to "clean up Washington" a reformer would be willing to hold himself to some sort of strict ethical standard.

The problem with this is that Obama is in effect saying that these internet donations are as clean as accepting the public funds. I see the advantage for him in accepting more money over less - but changing the definition of "public funds" to suit your own needs is pretty weak tea IMO.

We had campaign finance reform that passed in 2002. That reform has made a significant impact on how money is raised. It's a misnomer that a candidate can accept anonymous donations under current laws. The $2000 per individual limit is adequate. The real concern is over money that is donated to a Party and then is used for the promotion of a particular candidate - that money has less restrictions.

I'll try to find a break down of Obama's campaign contributions, but I think many here will be surprised.

[Peikko 1,575]

All this is true but the question is no longer "is Barack he best nominee for the Democrats", but whether you want someone who stands for Democractic ideals or Repubican ideals come election day?

I do think though, that I would like to see some of the stalwart supporters of Barack recognize that these are serious issues and not just brush them aside as propoganda.

Amen to the first paragraph. As for the second, I don't see what the big issue is when Obama merely furthers his chances to win in November. That's what this is: a simple calculation. Will the benefit of a larger war chest outweigh the fallout from the reversal on this issue? The answer is yes and therefore the reversal took place. I fail to see what's so outrageous about Obama being a politician that runs a campaign which has the ultimate goal of winning him the Presidency.

In the end, I think Obama's position in not taking public financing will probably have little overall perceptual impact on the race. In a pure strategic sense, It is the best decision for him to make.

Some will complain, but many of those complaining, likely have a grudge against Obama for whatever reason, or have made up their mind to vote for McCain.

The impact this will have on undecided voters, is probably small compared to other issues, like Race and Reverend Wright.

I am complaining on principals - not because I am a disgruntled 'other' supporter.

As to whether his decision will have much negative impact. I don't think it will, but that doesn't mean it isn't important, or indicative of Barack's true identity.

[HAL 9000 96]

Given that campaign finance reform is a big issue, and has been for a while now - you'd think that a politician promising to "clean up Washington" a reformer would be willing to hold himself to some sort of strict ethical standard.

The problem with this is that Obama is in effect saying that these internet donations are as clean as accepting the public funds. I see the advantage for him in accepting more money over less - but changing the definition of "public funds" to suit your own needs is pretty weak tea IMO.

We had campaign finance reform that passed in 2002. That reform has made a significant impact on how money is raised. It's a misnomer that a candidate can accept anonymous donations under current laws. The $2000 per individual limit is adequate. The real concern is over money that is donated to a Party and then is used for the promotion of a particular candidate - that money has less restrictions.

I'll try to find a break down of Obama's campaign contributions, but I think many here will be surprised.

Or worse, the use of private funds in parallel campaigning by 'third party groups' that typically is of the muddy consistency.

[metta 0]

All this is true but the question is no longer "is Barack he best nominee for the Democrats", but whether you want someone who stands for Democractic ideals or Repubican ideals come election day?

I don't mean to be cute, and I am by my own reckoning a slightly left-of-center democrat-turned independent. That said, the critical question for me is more "meta" and that is " who would be best for America?

As regards to ideals, I am closer to the Democratic side but not unquestioningly and I have not ruled out voting for Mccain either.

In looking at McCain, I am reminded of this article written in 2004 by a frustrated democrat flirting with the idea of supporting Mccain. Here is an excerpt:

There is an alternative, but it isn't one that most people have considered. In fact, the best Democrat may be someone who's no Democrat at all: Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). ( this caught my eye As a war hero who's hawkish on foreign policy, he more than matches Bush on the military front. As a reform-minded foe of corporate welfare, Big Tobacco, and the Republican right, he is peerless. McCain is Bush's most vociferous critic, voted against the president's tax cut, forced his hand on campaign finance reform, and federalized airport security in the face of White House opposition. He has co-sponsored numerous bills with Democrats--many of them in the presidential-aspirant class--requiring background checks at gun shows (Lieberman), a patients' bill of rights (Edwards), better fuel-efficiency standards in cars and SUVs (Kerry), and expanded national service programs (Bayh). He is even drafting a bill with Lieberman to reduce greenhouse gasses and mitigate global warming. As Ronald Brownstein remarked recently in the Los Angeles Times, "[McCain] has become the most hyphenated name in Washington."

The Big Switch

Edited June 25, 2008 by metta

[Dan J 277]

I don't like the campaing funding idea at all Steve. I don't think people should be elected on the strength of their ability to raise funds. Being a good fund raiser and being a good politician are not exactly interchangeable states.

The public funding ideal is still a good one, it's the way elections take place and the absolutely crazy sums of money that are spent on them that are completely wrong in my opinion.

As for the 'he didn't expect...' argument, yes, he's choosing expediency over principles. I get that, do you?

Well, I agree with PH. I am all for public financing. Infact I'd like to go furhter and place time limits on campaigns which is also a driver of campaign costs.

" Had I known then what I know now..." argument smacks of HRC on Iraq. is that not the big no no that was held against her?

Iraq and Campaign Financing are two issues that are not even on the same level. But its a little bit more complex than that.

Granted Hillary likely had a lot of pressure to vote for the war, being the Senator from New York, and how it was sold in connection to 9/11. It would have been nice if she questioned in detail the evidence presented to go to war, but its understandable why she voted the way she did.

I think her problems really came with how she changed her mind about it. She really stuck by it, until it became a liability. Instead of more " Had I known then what I know now..." argument it was more "I want the Democratic nomination, so I need to do something about the war...".

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Check out this site...

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?id=N00009638

Great resource.

Look at where Obama has gotten his money from...

Individual Contributions: over $286 million! Unheard of in any previous election! Remarkable!

PAC contributions: $ -650

Candidate Self Financing: $0

Federal Funds: $0

Other: $1 million.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think the key point here is that the way Obama has positioned himself as this agent of reform - the public image he is presenting isn't borne out by scrutiny. Things like this only reinforce that doubt about what he actually stands for... the new or the "same old".

While some people may be willing to overlook that on the basis of having a Democratic candidate in the White House - you can't really deny that it won't present him with some problems when it comes to selling himself to Independents and swing voters. Kerry lost on the basis of "better the devil you know", its not all that inconceivable that the same could happen here.

McCain is going to take a hit from the unpopularity from Bush - but you can't really hope that this will give Obama a win simply by itself... He needs to sell himself to the public - unambiguously.

Edited June 25, 2008 by Number 6

[HAL 9000 96]

Check out this site...

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?id=N00009638

Great resource.

Look at where Obama has gotten his money from...

Individual Contributions: over $286 million! Unheard of in any previous election! Remarkable!

PAC contributions: $ -650

Candidate Self Financing: $0

Federal Funds: $0

Other: $1 million.

Very interesting indeed, Steve. Check out McCain's numbers.

[Peikko 1,575]

Health care reform rules him out for me. I really do think that America would be a better place for the majority of its citizens if the government could put in place a system that does give adequate care for all citizens. However, I think McCain would be better for foreign policy. Ho hum.