Puerto Rican Democrats Love Clinton  |   Home  |   Lake Home Owner Was Being Taxed For Part of Lake

Obama Outspent Clinton in Primaries By Millions

I wonder if all of those people who complained about the recent Supreme Court elections in Wisconsin will rip Obama for “buying the election.”

Barack Obama outspent Hillary Clinton on TV $75 million to $46 million in the Democratic primaries, according to a new report by the Wisconsin Advertising Project.

In fact Obama, who expects to become the presumptive nominee this week, spent more than the entire Republican field.

Posted by Owen at 1210 hrs
Politics + Politics - General

1. Wasn’t the issue that the money for the Supreme Court campaign was coming from outside the state?  Obama’s running for national office.  He can get his donations from anywhere he wants.

   Posted by scott on June 02, 2008 at 1327 hrs
   
   
   

2. I wonder if all of those people who complained about the recent Supreme Court elections in Wisconsin will rip Obama for “buying the election.”

   Wouldn’t it just fall on deaf ears here?

   At least for me campaign finance reform is not candidate based.

   What are we at now for the projected total spent on this race?

   A billion?

   That’s not politics that’s an obscenity.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 02, 2008 at 1329 hrs
   
   
   

3. I can’t wait to listen to the Democrats’ party line should Obama become the first candidate to ever opt out of public financing for the general.  Damn that evil, corrupting influence of money, unless of course our candidate is rolling in it.  In which case, it’s just an example of the power of the internet and grassroots organizing.

   What a steaming load of crap.  Like PJR said, either the money is a problem or it’s not a problem.  It can’t just be a problem when you’re losing.

   Posted by Recess Supervisor on June 02, 2008 at 1416 hrs
   
   
   

4. I’m a Democrat and I’m all for publicly financed elections.  I never said, however, that I expected your side to unilaterally “disarm,” knowing that it would hurt your chances—and I certainly don’t want my side to do it either.

   Posted by scott on June 02, 2008 at 1420 hrs
   
   
   

5. What’s interesting is the breakdown the story showed of the GOP candidates.  Romney spent $32M during his time in the race, which equates (I think, I’ll have to check FEC numbers later) to about 50% of his total dollars.

   Rudy blew only $6M on his campaign treasury on ads - about 12% of his total money - of the near $50M he spent for his lone delegate.  McCain’s spent $11M on ads, Huckabee about $4M, and Ron Paul a little over $3M.

   It will be an interesting study to see how the frugal guys of the GOP (Paul, Huckabee, McCain) were able to do what they did on their shoe-string budgets.

   Also, Team Obama should be ashamed (and worried) with the amount they’ve spent in the later races like Ohio, Texas, and elsewhere where they outspent HRC and STILL lost.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 02, 2008 at 1547 hrs
   
   
   

6. Obama won Texas, if you go by delegate count, and that is, after all, the total that counts in a primary race.

   The money he spent in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and other states was well spent. Let’s not forget, six months ago, he was largely unknown to the country. The money he’s spent so far has served to introduce himself to the nation. That’s hardly wasted money.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 02, 2008 at 1637 hrs
   
   
   

7. One of the key differences between the money spent on ads in the SCOWI race and by Obama is that the groups buying ads for Butler and Gableman are not bound by any limits and are not required to disclose their donors.  Obama’s got so many donors—so many small-dollar donors, in fact—that he broke the FEC’s computer reporting their information.

   Apples to binder clips, Owen.  Apples to binder clips.

   Posted by folkbum on June 02, 2008 at 2019 hrs
   
   
   

8. Herein lies the fallacy of the logic used by CFR proponents.  If money corrupts the political process, then it would corrupt everything, right?  Is a candidate any less corrupted if he/she receives the money for his/her own campaign or if a third party group spends the same amount on his/her behalf?  If Gableman is corrupted by WMC’s efforts, wouldn’t he be equally corrupted if he received the money himself?  The source of the spending is irrelevant.  If money corrupts, then it is the person upon whom the money is spent who is corrupted - regardless of whether the money is given directly or indirectly. 

   Furthermore, if it is third party groups spending money to advocate, attempts to restrict such spending run into the buzz saw of the First Amendment.  If Jed and I wasn’t to get together and spend $1,000,000,000 to advocate for a candidate, it’s none of your dang business.  Such are the freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment.  Unless, of course, the First Amendment is merely an Amendment of convenience and not of principle.

   The other argument used by CFR proponents is that an imbalance of money is unfair because it does not allow all voices to be heard equally.  Well, fine.  Obama outspent Clinton 2 to 1.  He flooded the airwaves.  Is that unfair?  Should all candidates have an equal opportunity to reach the voters? 

   Of course, I think all of these arguments for CFR are total bunk.  I’m fine with Obama raising and spending so much money.  It’s just comical to watch some of you squirm to rationalize your positions.

   Posted by Owen on June 02, 2008 at 2039 hrs
   
   
   

9. Prima-caucuses aren’t real means of democracy.

   (Stupid Texas elections rules…)

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 02, 2008 at 2342 hrs
   
   
   

10. The source of the spending is irrelevant.  If money corrupts, then it is the person upon whom the money is spent who is corrupted - regardless of whether the money is given directly or indirectly.

    Yep, could not agree more.

    Should all candidates have an equal opportunity to reach the voters?

    And you would argue that all candidates should not have an equal opportunity to reach voters?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 03, 2008 at 0020 hrs
    
    
    

11. I’m pretty suspicious of most types of campaign finance reform.  Money is like water, it seeks its own level.  Thus, if you dam it up at one source, it will find another.  I’m also against publicly-funded elections.  Being able to raise money is a test of viability.  If you’re not convincing enough to people who really support you so that they are willing to contribute to your election, they why should I vote for you? 

    To me the amazing thing about Obama is that he has raised record amounts of money with a lot of $25 donations.  Normally, that’s a lot in a local race, but pennies in a presidential race.  There’s nothing that can be corrupting about a $25 donation—when you have millions of small donors, you can’t possibly promise each of them more than you promise everyone generally. 

    This is the modern world.  You can’t run an election without money.  And if you have enough to get your name, face and message out, it is foolhardy to hold it back.  Do I like it?  No.  Am I glad Obama won Wisconsin?  You bet?  Do I wish he had spent less?  Not if less meant he might not reach some voters he needed to win.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 03, 2008 at 0526 hrs
    
    
    

12. Correction:  Am I glad Obama won Wisconsin?  You bet! (No question about it.)

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 03, 2008 at 0527 hrs
    
    
    

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.