a president who is baisically trying to buy the presidency for $605 million... Guarantee next election they will put limits on how much you can spend to campaign because he has wasted so much...

Quote :

" -From The "Los Angeles Times" Oct 23 2008 Having hauled in a record $208,333 every hour of every day last month -- $150 million in all -- plus a few more unreported millions so far this month, Barack Obama is worried that he might come up short in the political money war with the John McCain-Sarah Palin ticket. Just to relieve himself of that $150 million before the polls open, Obama will have to spend $12.5 million a day. But he needs some more. And, according to an e-mail plea to supporters, tonight's the absolute deadline to donate $10 more and receive your special edition Official Obama-Biden car magnet. Having now collected more than $605 million altogether, the freshman senator shows no concern over the appearance of buying the presidency. Imagine for a moment the national political conversation that could be going on now if rich Republicans had raked in that much loot for one campaign. Obama's team is so well-funded and well-organized it has spread its political web into one-time red states, forcing McCain to defend them with his measly $84.1 million in federal funds. Obama aides privately profess profound concern that additional financial resources from the Republican National Committee could make the GOP ticket competitive in the closing days. And the Cincinatti Bengals are a real Super Bowl threat this year. "The race is deadlocked in a number of crucial battleground states," the urgent e-mail proclaims, "including Ohio, Missouri and Indiana. And we're neck-and-neck in Florida, North Carolina and Nevada. "We have to make our final, tough decisions about where to fight and how strong we can make our team. And those choices will depend on the financial resources we have." And, hey, if there's a few hundred million dollars left over in the campaign coffers on Nov. 5, win or lose, maybe Obama would like to put it toward the immense federal budget deficits that our colleague Stephen Braun warns this morning will confront the hopes and current plans of either an Obama or McCain White House come Jan. 21."

10/24/2008 3:17:25 PM

don't worry about silly things like buying the presidency. If it was good enough for the Chicago mayorship, it's good enough for amurrca

10/24/2008 3:22:48 PM

Face it, bitches.

Obama is your president.

WoooHoo!

10/24/2008 3:24:17 PM

hey if you like someone who spends money like that, more power to you

10/24/2008 3:25:36 PM

not only that, but he spends that money AFTER lying to you about taking public campaign financing

10/24/2008 3:27:37 PM

first you bitch that he sounds like a socialist, then you bitch that he's winning the capitalist way by letting people vote with their money.

10/24/2008 3:30:24 PM

^
Thats a good point, Im pretty sure he doesnt even know what he is. What ever you have to say/do to get the votes right!

10/24/2008 3:31:30 PM

winning the capitalist way by letting people vote with their money? Are you fucking KIDDING me? You do realize that McCain has spending limits imposed on him, right? you are a fucking idiot

10/24/2008 3:32:51 PM

Quote :

"because he has wasted so much..."

It's not wasted if you win.

I do feel a little sorry for McCain though. It's got to be hard to raise money when half the people who vote for you are fiscally conservative and the other half just donate prayers.

[Edited on October 24, 2008 at 3:39 PM. Reason : .]

10/24/2008 3:38:27 PM

Quote :

"the other half just donate prayers."

haha, i like it

10/24/2008 3:41:18 PM

So I guess its safe to say that any hope for campaign finance reform during the next four years is dead?

10/24/2008 4:42:13 PM

Quote :

"I do feel a little sorry for McCain though. It's got to be hard to raise money when half the people who vote for you are fiscally conservative and the other half just donate prayers."

LOL

10/24/2008 4:44:45 PM

10/24/2008 5:18:28 PM

Quote :

"winning the capitalist way by letting people vote with their money? Are you fucking KIDDING me? You do realize that McCain has spending limits imposed on him, right? you are a fucking idiot"

You realized McCain's spending limits mean very little, considering the RNC is free to pick up the rest of the tab? And the RNC is DRASTICALLY out raising the DNC, but they pretty much have to.

And you have to look at the source of Obama's funding to realize even though he's making a lot of $$$ it's not big business or special interests that's funding him, it's individual donors.

10/24/2008 5:22:03 PM

Quote :

"Are you fucking KIDDING me? You do realize that McCain has spending limits imposed on him, right? you are a fucking idiot"

Obama's spending may be an issue but McCain is limited because he accepted taxpayer money. Not only is that a choice but it is technically increased government spending.

Personally, I am not sure any limits on campaign financing are constitutional

10/24/2008 5:28:44 PM

still doesn't change the fact that Obama is buying the presidency, and it still doesn't change the fact that this is not an example of people "voting with their dollars." People are not able to contribute to McCain's campaign in the same way they are able to contribute to Obama's, so there is no comparison there.

10/24/2008 5:29:31 PM

this thread is ridiculous. You guys are crying so bad it's quite a bit of fun.

10/24/2008 5:35:04 PM

As I learn more and more about the US election system, the more I get intrigued. Someone explain this please:

Quote :

"You do realize that McCain has spending limits imposed on him, right?"

Quote :

"People are not able to contribute to McCain's campaign in the same way they are able to contribute to Obama's"

Are you saying that there are limits on how much money McCain can raise/spend, but not on Obama? If so, why? Doesn't seem fair to me.

10/24/2008 5:36:00 PM

The average contribution is what... $82?

That's grassroots, bitches. Don't pout because the average Joe doesn't like your candidate enough to give him money.

10/24/2008 5:40:10 PM

Quote :

"If so, why? Doesn't seem fair to me."

The maximum that they can contribute to the campaign is the same amount, but the maximum amount that McCain can spend is significantly smaller than McCain because McCain decided to take public financing.

Although, I will say that I'm pretty sure that an extra committee has been set up to help fund field programs in the battleground states (for the Dems). Committee maximum contributions is $28,500 per year.

[Edited on October 24, 2008 at 5:43 PM. Reason : .]

10/24/2008 5:43:01 PM

According to Freakonomics spending more money has no correlation to winning an election. So if you believe in their statistics, which for that topic are extremely unbiased, Obama can't buy a win no matter how much he spends.

10/24/2008 6:08:21 PM

Quote :

"Are you saying that there are limits on how much money McCain can raise/spend, but not on Obama? If so, why? Doesn't seem fair to me."

Absolutely, yes, McCain has spending limits. Because McCain and Obama both signed an agreement with each other to take public campaign financing, which carries with it spending limits. Obama reneged on his promise.

10/24/2008 6:10:10 PM

Quote :

"Are you saying that there are limits on how much money McCain can raise/spend, but not on Obama? If so, why? Doesn't seem fair to me."

McCain opted for public financing, which means he gets a fixed amount of money (85 million I think) to spend on his campaign.

Obama did NOT opt for this, and instead he can raise money on his own to spend.

However, both the RNC and DNC have no limits on how much money they can raise, and the RNC, to make up for McCain himself not being able to raise money, have been filling in the role that McCain would have been doing anyway, had he not opted for public financing:

Quote :

"With significant time and help from President George W. Bush, the RNC ended April with $40.6 million in the bank—10 times more than the Democratic National Committee, which had a modest $4.4 million in the bank."

- http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/clintondebt.html

10/24/2008 6:14:55 PM

^^First of many no doubt.

[Edited on October 24, 2008 at 6:16 PM. Reason : ^]

10/24/2008 6:15:40 PM

Quote :

"Obama did NOT opt for this, and instead he can raise money on his own to spend."

way to neglect to mention that Obama flip flopped on that. good little liberal. goooooood little liberal.

10/24/2008 6:16:23 PM

silly thread

we all know that if mccain COULD have raised that much, he would have not accepted gov money w/ the limitations

10/24/2008 6:17:15 PM

it was a bullshit move for him to flip flop on that....i wish he had stuck with accepting it....

10/24/2008 6:17:19 PM

^^^ you had already mentioned it 10x already, and you realize McCain has changed his mind on tons of things too? Or does it only matter when Obama changes his mind?

[Edited on October 24, 2008 at 6:19 PM. Reason : ]

10/24/2008 6:19:45 PM

let's see... Obama SIGNS A LETTER, and then flip flops on it when it proves politically convenient. As in, he did something that would otherwise be legally binding, and you see no problem with him going back on his word.

that's a little bit different than saying "oh, I was for this, but now I'm against it," and you fucking know it. And, btw, I will call McCain out equally for his flip flops. But the one that was being discussed was why Obama doesn't have spending limits. Namely, because he LIED, BROKE HIS PROMISE.

10/24/2008 6:22:03 PM

^ wait, so now you're saying Obama signed a legally binding contract for public financing?

hahaha

First you are making up fake black people to carve letters in to your face, now you're making up fake contracts that don't exist.

Nice.

10/24/2008 6:26:19 PM

yep, he did sign a letter of agreement with McCain to take public financing. it's not a "legally binding contract," as you say, and I never said it was. thanks, once again, for the scarecrow. you are getting good at making them.

10/24/2008 6:37:55 PM

Quote :

"As in, he did something that would otherwise be legally binding, and you see no problem with him going back on his word. that's a little bit different than saying "oh, I was for this, but now I'm against it," "

Yet again, you are delusional about reality.

10/24/2008 6:40:34 PM

care to address me calling out your strawman? of course not. Instead, you'll continue to ignore what I have posited here: that Obama LIED to the nation and the McCain camp.

If I'm delusional, I'd hate to think of what that makes you. probably drowning in your own feces

[Edited on October 24, 2008 at 6:43 PM. Reason : ]

10/24/2008 6:43:33 PM

^ It's not a lie if you change your mind.

I'm sure Obama had every intention of taking public financing at the time, because he was still a small fish, and it wasn't clear he was going to win.

He DID break his promise though, but it's obvious why he changed his mind on this issue.

10/24/2008 6:52:23 PM

yes, it's obvious why he lied to people. because it was politically convenient.

10/24/2008 6:53:42 PM

^ I understand that things are more comfortable for you when you imagine the world to be how you want it to be, but asserting these delusions to other people only make you look insane.

10/24/2008 6:55:58 PM

Just watching news on TV, and they had a report saying that McCain's 'gaming donations' (donations from people involved in casinos/gambling) amount to $2 million, whereas Obama's $50K-100K.

10/24/2008 7:47:42 PM

^
You can see more breakdowns here:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00006424
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

90% of Obama's are individual contributors vs. 54% for McCain.

Obama also has a little higher rating on the quality of disclosure too.

OMFG WHAT IS MCCAIN TRYING TO HIDE??? WE NEED OT KNOW THE REEL MCCAINQ!!!11

[Edited on October 24, 2008 at 8:04 PM. Reason : ]

10/24/2008 8:03:00 PM

Somebody explain to me why this money isn't corrupting.

Because the whole logic of campaign finance regulations has been that money is somehow intrinsically corrupting.

But so long as there's a whole lot of it coming from "small donations on average" (let's not get into whether or not Obama's donation tracking system, which has already demonstrated to be poor at best and possibly enabling of campaign finance fraud at worst) is peachy-keen.

I mean, I thought that was the whole argument - money is inherently corrupting to politics. I never believed it, and for some reason it doesn't seem to apply now that the Democrat is raising assloads of cash. Apparently exclusively because we are lead to believe that, assuming nobody is skirting the demonstrably flawed barriers to campaign finance limits (again - people have been throwing in fake addresses and showing these donations get through) - money is not corrupting as long as it's a lot of really small donations.

10/25/2008 3:05:20 AM

^ The idea behind that isn't too complicated. Assume that you are normally going to give special consideration to contributors- if you have a shit-ton of them from all over the place then it becomes harder to provide them any special treatment. If you have a shit-ton who've given you very little individually, then you also have very little incentive to give any of them special treatment.

If you have 5 people who give you a shit ton of money each, you have a much larger incentive to give them special treatment and a much greater ability to do so. Even if those 5 people want completely seperate things, that's still just 5 things. Now, I'm not saying this is all correct reasoning, but it's not hard to understand at all.

10/25/2008 9:45:07 AM

My point is though that there are some - including, ironically enough, John McCain, that buy into the fundamental premise that money is in itself intrinsically corrupting in a campaign. (These are the people that call for complete public financing of campaigns, which is just a terrible idea.)

In fact, this is the whole logic behind campaign matching funds - candidates accept a limit upon donations to receive matching funds in order to discourage "excessive fundraising." So, how does the premise that money is somehow intrinsically corrupting jibe with this? In other words, if money suddenly is no longer intrinsically corrupting at $20-$50 a pop even at $600 million, then what does this say about the whole premise behind matching funds altogether?

Besides which, if access is the only issue that can be pointed to with regards to small donations, it still doesn't rule out the effect of "bundlers" and "organizers" using the proxy of donations to achieve inordinate access. Sure, it's not as grossly excessive as the Bush "pioneers" in 2000, but let's face it - I doubt if Obama is pulling as much money as he is that it's all due to somebody shelling out $20 a pop.

But regardless - if access is the only thing that can be pointed to as the "corrupting influence" of money on campaigns, it's so easy to see that circumvented (again, through activities like organizing and "bundling") that it seems almost meaningless. Either money is "intrinsically corrupting" to a campaign or it isn't.

My money's on the latter.

[Edited on October 25, 2008 at 12:43 PM. Reason : .]

10/25/2008 12:43:01 PM

Quote :

" buy the presidency "

i thought this thread was about Haliburton


guess what?

[/thread]

10/25/2008 1:38:50 PM

Quote :

"winning the capitalist way by letting people vote with their money? Are you fucking KIDDING me? You do realize that McCain has spending limits imposed on him, right? you are a fucking idiot"

Yes i was kidding you.

10/25/2008 1:53:42 PM

let's remember that the vast majority of Obamas money comes from individual donations of $100 or less.

and whats funny is that the vast majority of McCain's money comes from Politcal Action Committees and Corporate Lobbyists.

sorry, "MikeHoncho", the old geezer got owned.

10/26/2008 5:00:00 AM

Obama Opts Out of Public Financing

Quote :

"Sen. Barack Obama has switched course [FLIP-FLOPPED] on general-election funding, announcing this morning that he would reject public financing and raise every dime for the fall campaign on his own."

Quote :

". . .For months, Obama has eased back from an earlier pledge to 'pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election,' warning that it could impose unfair constraints."

Quote :

"'It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections,' Obama said in a video message to supporters, circulated by his campaign."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/19/obama_opts_out_of_public_finan.html?hpid=topnews

Yeah, Obama supports "robust" public financing--as long as it's politically expedient. I wonder what other pledges Obama will break--I'll wager the over $250,000 tax bullshit will be one of the first.

10/26/2008 5:17:52 AM

Again, I ask you... are you still mad?


let it go dude. its just going to eat at you for the next 8 years, and it won't help you a bit.

trust me

10/26/2008 5:21:08 AM

^ Obama's probably going to win, but I seriously doubt he's going to be a two-term president. Think Jimmy Carter.

10/26/2008 5:23:04 AM

yeah, whatever. right now the country cant get much worse. ~80% think "we're heading in the wrong direction" and that was BEFORE the financial meltdown.

the next four years are going to see two wars resolved, and the financial stability of the country restored.

obama's second term will be his to lose.

10/26/2008 5:29:03 AM

^ 1. If Obama had his way, we probably would have lost those wars already--Iraq for sure.

2. U.S. Presidents don't control the economy.

3. Obama can't pay for everything he's promised.

10/26/2008 5:32:00 AM

still drinking the koolaid, i see.

(1) if Obama had his way, we would have never GONE into Iraq. Iraq, by ALL intelligence and military analysis, posed ZERO threat to the US or our allies.

In fact, all secular/Sunni Iraq actually did was act as a counterbalance to fundamentalist/Shi'a Iran. in hindsight, it's actually quite a bummer that we lost that.

and if when Obama has his way, we will finally deliver the troops and material necessary to Afghanistan to squelch the resurging Taleban, and perhaps even root out the single person responsible for planning the 9/11 attacks.

(2) the public votes otherwise

(3) nobody ever does. but he has the sense to understand where cuts need to be made. the only ones who have EVER balanced the federal budget AND created a surplus has been the Democrats.

George W. Bush ran his 2000 campaign on his presumed fiscal conservative roots and the fear that Gore would splurge and squander our historic surplus developed (amusingly enought) under Clinton. The irony of it all is that GWB blew our surplus and sent us further into debt than anyone could have imagined in their wildest nightmares.

sorry for you conservo-nutcases, but the public isn't buying it anymore.

dont let the door hit you in the ass on your way out, mmkay?



[Edited on October 26, 2008 at 5:44 AM. Reason : ]

10/26/2008 5:39:01 AM