Obama’s Fundraising Might Signal End to Public Financing
Well, perhaps there could be some good to come out of this.
WASHINGTON—It wasn’t Barack Obama’s most critically acclaimed moment.
When the Democratic presidential candidate reneged on his pledge to take public financing for the general election, campaign watchdog groups and newspaper editorialists pounced. They all hoped he would help salvage a broken campaign finance system.
Instead, he created a whole new one, and he destined the current system of public financing to the trash heap.
On Sunday, Obama’s campaign announced he had raised more than $150 million in September alone, a previously unimaginable fundraising rate of $5 million a day. Republican rival John McCain, who chose to participate in the public system, has been limited by law to spending only $84 million in September and October.
At Obama’s clip, his fundraising will easily surpass the $650 million total spent by President Bush and Democrat John Kerry combined in 2004. Indeed, by using sophisticated new social networking tools to reach legions of small donors, Obama has already exceeded the forecasts of some campaign finance seers who two years ago were predicting the two parties’ nominees would each spend about $500 million.
The extraordinary sum vindicated Obama’s decision. It also made a public finance system born after the excesses of the Watergate era look decidedly quaint.
Funny, I don’t hear all of those campaign “watchdog” groups clucking their tongues at Obama’s opulent spending.
He’s raising $150,000,000 with an average of less than $100 per donor. That’s pretty remarkable. Why would anyone cluck at that?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 19, 2008 at 2238 hrs
I hope Obama spend a fraction of his campaign fund to help the less fortunate. That would surely confirm his presidency.
Posted by che of teak furniture on October 20, 2008 at 0031 hrs
Wow! The College Station paper endorses Obama?
http://www.theeagle.com/editorial/101908-President
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 20, 2008 at 0621 hrs
Indeed, by using sophisticated new social networking tools to reach legions of small donors,
Uh-huh.
Either they’re contributing their allowances from Mom and Dad, or there’s something resembling crime going on.
See Timmerman’s articles in NewsMax—or my blog.
Posted by dad29 on October 20, 2008 at 0707 hrs
I originally found this issue cited at Investors Business Daily - Newsmax has been following this since July:
http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/obama_illegal_donations/2008/10/19/141979.html
By Obama’s own admission, more than half of his contributions have come from small donors giving $200 or less. But unlike John McCain’s campaign, Obama won’t release the names of these donors.
And more than 37,000 Obama donations appear to be conversions of foreign currency.
According to a Newsmax analysis of the Obama campaign data before the latest figures were released, potential foreign currency donations could range anywhere from $12.8 million to a stunning $63 million in all. With the addition of $150 million raised in September, this amount could be much more.
Lisa Handley, a stay-at-home mom from Portland, Ore., recalled giving $4,600 to the Obama campaign by credit card, contributions she made because “I love Obama,” she said.
According to FEC records, however, she gave an additional $2,300 to the campaign, putting her over the limit.
The Obama campaign reported that it had “redesignated” the excess money, which could mean that it had contributed it to a separate party committee or a joint fundraising committee, which have higher limits.
But if that happened, it’s news to Handley. “No one ever contacted me to return any of the money or told me they were redesignating some of the money,” she said.
Sandra Daneshinia, a self-employed caregiver from Los Angeles, made 36 separate contributions, totaling $7,051.12, according to FEC records. Thirteen of them were eventually refunded.
In a bizarre coincidence, those 13 refunded contributions—for varying amounts such as $223.88 and $201.44—added up exactly to $2,300, the amount an individual may give per federal election.
I think this explains the $100 per donation (not per donor)
Of those, 44,410 contributions came in unrounded amounts of less than $100. FEC regulations only require that campaigns disclose the names of donors who have given a total of $200 or more, so that means that all these contributors were repeat donors.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 20, 2008 at 0708 hrs
Welcome to the Clinton’s part deux. Youhave to watch every word that they use very carefully. And I see they’ve learned Bill’s use of Chinese money as well. Of course if you are a socialist talking to a marxist - that conversation is probably easier.
Are we going to see more arms and technology sales to China under an Obama administration as well?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 20, 2008 at 1108 hrs
Dad29 - didn’t mean to “step” on your comment - glad I’m not the only one that smells something “funky” about this. I think there is some kind of ACORN-math being applied here.
Kind of curious about all the “small” donations - I thought Obama said most working people need some “wealth spread around”. I also remember him expressing empathy for the people who can’t afford to fill their gas tank, after paying mortgage, blah-blah-blah.
And yet all these “small” donations are rolling in? TV/Radio ministries were notorious for soliciting donations from people who couldn’t afford to donate.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 20, 2008 at 1109 hrs
Fun with donations - “Jesus II” gave McCain $850.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/more_fun_with_mccain_donation.php
Are Owen and dad29 displaying an early onset of Obama Derangement Syndrome? I see that now the rightwing wants to pre-emptively discredit Obama. His supporters aren’t real Americans, his votes aren’t real votes, his money isn’t legit. All of which is baloney of course, but when you have nothing left, I guess you have to start making stuff up.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 20, 2008 at 1138 hrs
Yeah, payback can be a real bitch.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 20, 2008 at 1214 hrs
Of course the interesting thing is that without public financing, McCain might not have ever gotten the nomination. He used public financing to save his primary run when he was near bankrupt. Had it not been available to him, think of what better Conservative might have come out of the primary?
Then McCain actually tried to REJECT public financing during the national run, but was not allowed to, because he had actually used it as collateral against a loan, which the FEC ruled (correctly in my view) was tantamount to actually exercising the right to it.
Posted by Nick on October 20, 2008 at 1255 hrs
Fun with donations
Too bad the guy doesn’t look through the database for Obama, but he can’t, can he?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122441294251948009.html
The Obama campaign said it was vetting all its donors. It’s unclear how widespread these donations are because the Obama campaign has declined to make public its list of small donors, as Sen. McCain has done.
Privacy is OK for Democratic donors, but not necessary during workplace union organization (Card-Check legislation). Of course, unions are Democratic donors, so it’s OK, when it is for “the cause”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 20, 2008 at 1255 hrs
All donors are available on the FEC list, mht.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 20, 2008 at 1330 hrs
All donors are available on the FEC list, mht.
Not the donors under $200.
“Contributions that come under $200 aggregated per person are not listed,” said Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the FEC. “They don’t appear anywhere, so there’s no way of knowing who they are.”
So, if the same donor uses different names (false, family, whatever) they can exceed the $200 aggregate threshold. This is kind of how ACORN handles voter registration - overwhelm the system with so many names (including false) that it becomes impractical to verify anything.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 20, 2008 at 1350 hrs
Kind of curious about all the “small” donations
The MOST curious stuff is the ‘odd amounts,’ such as $65.38, or $241.06. Those smell like currency conversions…
No problem with the “step.” Happy to have the info out there.
Posted by dad29 on October 20, 2008 at 1610 hrs
Funny, I don’t hear all of those campaign “watchdog” groups clucking their tongues at Obama’s opulent spending.
While the level of spending is always a concern—the more one spends, the more it seems one is simply buying an election—the big problem was always the sense that PACs, individuals, or other groups were able to buy candidates through massive unregulated contributions.
In other words, millions of small donors are far less likely than concentrations of high-dollar donors to influence the actions of an elected official in any particular direction.
Or, as a prominent campaign-finance proponent once said, “We want average citizens to contribute small amounts of money, and that’s a commitment to a campaign. So I’m for that. I think it’s a great thing. I think the Internet is going to change American politics for the better.”
Posted by folkbum on October 21, 2008 at 0528 hrs
millions of small donors are far less likely than concentrations of high-dollar donors to influence the actions of an elected official in any particular direction
,,,,Yah, but we don’t know anything at all about these “millions of small donors.” Since Obama’s keeping it all double-deep-secret, they could actually be only 40 people (say, the Saudi Royal family) acting through .....ahhh….ACORN-registered voters.
Posted by dad29 on October 21, 2008 at 0640 hrs
they could actually be only 40 people (say, the Saudi Royal family) acting through .....ahhh….ACORN-registered voters.
... on the grassy knoll. Sure, that makes perfect sense.
Posted by folkbum on October 21, 2008 at 0811 hrs
on the grassy knoll. Sure, that makes perfect sense.
Actually, as far as conspiracy theories, I would say it’s more like any of the following that we have been hearing about the last 8 years:
“The 2000 election was stolen”
“The 2004 election was hacked”
“Karl Rove is the evil genius/devil behind anything successful that the Republicans have accomplished”
“Bush/Chaney” (seems like nothing more specific, just intoning “Bush/Chaney” over and over - kind of like the mindless kids in that video singing their praises to Obama).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 21, 2008 at 0939 hrs
“The extraordinary sum vindicated Obama’s decision.”
Sounds like the idea that a woman who agrees to sleep with someone for $1 million is reasonably overwhelmed by the noble sum. Or just a ho open for negotiation at the right amount.
Posted by tee bee on October 21, 2008 at 1115 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 109
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/12/2012 06:32 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).