/dev/null Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080619/ap_on_el_pr/obama_money WASHINGTON - Barack Obama is abandoning public financing for his presidential campaign, reversing his earlier stance in bold certainty he can raise millions more on his own as the first major-party candidate to bypass the tax-checkoff system that was hurried into place after the Watergate scandal. ... Last year, Obama filled out a questionnaire where he vowed to "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." But since clinching the Democratic nomination earlier this month, Obama has not broached the subject with McCain. The only discussion occurred about two weeks ago between Obama's and McCain's lawyers, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 I agree. If McCain takes the dough... Then Obama should. You don't bring a knife to a gun fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Obama basically said "I can fundraise more than the $85 million that the gov't would give to me." To me, that makes more sense, because if he took that $85 million, he wouldn't be able to receive any other contributions. OTOH, McCain is done fundraising, and cannot get any more $ than the 85 mil that the gov't will give him. I'd rather see each candidate not use this public money and have them fundraise on their own. Then again, that is just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 And this is a surprise because... ? There's blood in the water. No time for trifles like honor and ethics. Putney Swope will be the king. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 Apparently the system allows a candidate to take the money, which limits public fundraising. However what happens is that PACs and other groups then become extensions of the campaign (example Swift Boaters, Move-on, etc.) effectively circumventing the rules. It's not illegal but it's a loophole to exploit and set aside the system and spirit of fairness. Obama has decided to raise his own money out in the open. And he's not taking corporate money so it's all coming from citizens, all with the limit of $2500 per person. Obama stated last fall that if he were the candidate he'd talk it over with McCain and see if they could agree on this situation - either use the public money and follow the rules, or not. His campaign says they talked with McCain's, and they couldn't agree. McCain's campaign says no-one talked to them. It's a pretty easy thing to confirm or refute. Reading between the lines it sounds like McCain gambled that Obama would take the public money and forfeit public fundraising, and lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 Apparently the system allows a candidate to take the money, which limits public fundraising. However what happens is that PACs and other groups then become extensions of the campaign (example Swift Boaters, Move-on, etc.) effectively circumventing the rules. It's not illegal but it's a loophole to exploit and set aside the system and spirit of fairness. Obama has decided to raise his own money out in the open. And he's not taking corporate money so it's all coming from citizens, all with the limit of $2500 per person. Ah, the Barack Obama/John Kerry spin on it. Obama stated last fall that if he were the candidate he'd talk it over with McCain and see if they could agree on this situation - either use the public money and follow the rules, or not. His campaign says they talked with McCain's, and they couldn't agree. McCain's campaign says no-one talked to them. It's a pretty easy thing to confirm or refute. Reading between the lines it sounds like McCain gambled that Obama would take the public money and forfeit public fundraising, and lost. Right, because if McCain was planning on taking public funding, he wouldn't agree to such a deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 lol http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/opinion/...amp;oref=slogin I think from now on, the media should be forced to differentiate between the two Obama's and the two McCain's. "Dr. Barack today said" or "Fast Eddie Obama today said" for Obama "Maverick McCain today said" or "Slippery john today said" for McCain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 Ah, the Barack Obama/John Kerry spin on it. Uh I don't think so. It is what it is. In addition the candidates also have access to the national party funding. So saying "I am only going to take $85m, how nice I am!" is pure unadulterated bull sh--. Right, because if McCain was planning on taking public funding, he wouldn't agree to such a deal. I can't answer what EITHER of them was thinking. Since McCain has a snowball's chance in hell of outraising Obama, of course he was going to take the $85m. And the PAC money. And the RNC money. Better that than continually being made to look bad because Obama is outraising him by exponential amounts. I would imagine if the candidates could agree on what they'd take, and spend, and had trust in each other that the agreement would be adhered to, they might have gone down that road. Frankly people don't give a rat's ass about campaign finance. They know the system is rotten. McCain's campaign is run by lobbyists and he takes money from lobbyists. Obama's does not. And even so he's outraising McCain. So there is no reason why Obama should not risk it all on his ability to raise money from the people. If the source of funding dries up, then it dries up. He's willing to take that risk and the money that goes into his campaign will all be able to be traced and accounted for - no temptation to take advantage of the loopholes that the GOP loves so dearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 Uh I don't think so. It is what it is. In addition the candidates also have access to the national party funding. So saying "I am only going to take $85m, how nice I am!" is pure unadulterated bull sh--. This is what you said: And he's not taking corporate money so it's all coming from citizens, all with the limit of $2500 per person. Cept that he's still taking money from bundlers, so it doesn't matter. McCain's campaign is run by lobbyists and he takes money from lobbyists. Obama's does not. And even so he's outraising McCain. So there is no reason why Obama should not risk it all on his ability to raise money from the people. If the source of funding dries up, then it dries up. He's willing to take that risk and the money that goes into his campaign will all be able to be traced and accounted for - no temptation to take advantage of the loopholes that the GOP loves so dearly. See above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 20, 2008 Author Share Posted June 20, 2008 Uh I don't think so. It is what it is. In addition the candidates also have access to the national party funding. So saying "I am only going to take $85m, how nice I am!" is pure unadulterated bull sh--. I can't answer what EITHER of them was thinking. Since McCain has a snowball's chance in hell of outraising Obama, of course he was going to take the $85m. And the PAC money. And the RNC money. Better that than continually being made to look bad because Obama is outraising him by exponential amounts. I would imagine if the candidates could agree on what they'd take, and spend, and had trust in each other that the agreement would be adhered to, they might have gone down that road. Frankly people don't give a rat's ass about campaign finance. They know the system is rotten. McCain's campaign is run by lobbyists and he takes money from lobbyists. Obama's does not. And even so he's outraising McCain. So there is no reason why Obama should not risk it all on his ability to raise money from the people. If the source of funding dries up, then it dries up. He's willing to take that risk and the money that goes into his campaign will all be able to be traced and accounted for - no temptation to take advantage of the loopholes that the GOP loves so dearly. Would you hold the same opinion if it were McCain (or any Republican) that opted out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 This is what you said: Cept that he's still taking money from bundlers, so it doesn't matter. See above. Hmm. It looks like PACs are heeding Obama's request and following his lead. Where are the Republicans on this issue? MoveOn.org shutters its 527 Posted: 03:40 PM ET From CNN Senior Political Producer Sasha Johnson MoveOn.org is getting out of the 527 business. WASHINGTON (CNN) — The political advocacy group MoveOn.org is getting out of the 527 business. "While MoveOn Political Action has always been funded exclusively by small donors like you, we've held open the MoveOn.org Voter Fund - a separate "527″ organization - which can raise money from big donors. We haven't actually taken any big-money checks since 2004," MoveOn.org Executive Director Eli Pariser wrote in an email to the group's members. "In light of the new politics offered by Barack Obama, I've come to believe it's time to close the 527 forever." The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee has said he does not want "527s" and outside, independent groups advertising on his behalf in the general election. A "527″ is an political organization that can raise money in high dollar amounts and launch political advocacy campaigns, including television ads. Past prominent "527s" include the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," a group that in 2004 attacked Sen. John Kerry's war record and arguably contributed to him losing his White House bid. But few had the impact of MoveOn's. The group will retain its political action committee, which can take donations up to $5,000, though the group says the average donation hovers in the $50 range. Even though its 527 is going away, MoveOn.org is not completely heeding Obama's request to stay off the airwaves. Last week, the group teamed up with one of the biggest labor unions, the American Federartion of State, County and Municipal Employees, to go up with a national television ad criticizing Sen. John McCain's position on the Iraq war. The impact of outside groups this cycle is still up for debate. Since Obama's request some Democratic leaning groups have seen their donor base thin, forcing them to abandon paid media plans and instead shift gears to focus more on research and message. Obama referenced the past power of 527 groups as a factor in deciding to opt out of public financing for the general election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 20, 2008 Author Share Posted June 20, 2008 Hmm. It looks like PACs are heeding Obama's request and following his lead. Where are the Republicans on this issue? MoveOn.org shutters its 527 Posted: 03:40 PM ET From CNN Senior Political Producer Sasha Johnson MoveOn.org is getting out of the 527 business. So how do you explain the moveon.org commercial i saw the other day with a MILF and her baby son, talking about John McCain and "There for a 100 years" and how McCain couldn't have her baby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 So how do you explain the moveon.org commercial i saw the other day with a MILF and her baby son, talking about John McCain and "There for a 100 years" and how McCain couldn't have her baby Was it Obama's baby too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 21, 2008 Author Share Posted June 21, 2008 Was it Obama's baby too? Nah, it was a white baby. Probably belonged to some homeless guy in Massachusettes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 So how do you explain the moveon.org commercial i saw the other day with a MILF and her baby son, talking about John McCain and "There for a 100 years" and how McCain couldn't have her baby That was then. This is now. IF you'd worked in marcom or advertising you know once you pay and pull the trigger, it goes. The statement was issued THIS AFTERNOON at 3:40 pm (PST). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 McCain is making a big deal of this because he doesn't have the energy to go to all these fundraisers and gladhand the GOP bigwigs into forking over some dough! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 That was then. This is now. IF you'd worked in marcom or advertising you know once you pay and pull the trigger, it goes. The statement was issued THIS AFTERNOON at 3:40 pm (PST). Your own article says it doesn't apply to those types of advertising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 22, 2008 Author Share Posted June 22, 2008 That was then. This is now. IF you'd worked in marcom or advertising you know once you pay and pull the trigger, it goes. The statement was issued THIS AFTERNOON at 3:40 pm (PST). and yet the commercial is still running The king is dead. Long live the king Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philly McButterpants Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 Uh I don't think so. It is what it is. In addition the candidates also have access to the national party funding. So saying "I am only going to take $85m, how nice I am!" is pure unadulterated bull sh--. I can't answer what EITHER of them was thinking. Since McCain has a snowball's chance in hell of outraising Obama, of course he was going to take the $85m. And the PAC money. And the RNC money. Better that than continually being made to look bad because Obama is outraising him by exponential amounts. I would imagine if the candidates could agree on what they'd take, and spend, and had trust in each other that the agreement would be adhered to, they might have gone down that road. Frankly people don't give a rat's ass about campaign finance. They know the system is rotten. McCain's campaign is run by lobbyists and he takes money from lobbyists. Obama's does not. And even so he's outraising McCain. So there is no reason why Obama should not risk it all on his ability to raise money from the people. If the source of funding dries up, then it dries up. He's willing to take that risk and the money that goes into his campaign will all be able to be traced and accounted for - no temptation to take advantage of the loopholes that the GOP loves so dearly. Oh of course not. The immaculate democrats are never beholden to ANY special interests. Puh-lease . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Oh, that change: Audacity of a broken promise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts