The $150 Million Dollar Man

[MattusMaximus]

Obama campaign donation statistics: Linky

3.1 million individual donors total

632,000 new donors in September alone

Average donation: $86

This is the most amazing grass-roots political organization in history, imo. Ya gotta love the Internet!

 

[BeAChooser]

You heard me ... Obama ... $150 million in donations ... in September alone.

Just curious, Pookster. Can you tell us how much of that came from Americans? Because there really isn't tracking for much of it.

Remember, McCain only has $84 million he can spend between September and the election.

Because unlike Obama, McCain didn't LIE when he initially pledged to accept public funding limits.

In February of 2007 Obama declared "If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." He didn't say "may". He said "will". And it appears McCain agreed to his proposal. Obama's lawyers then met ONCE with McCain's. And then backed away from his "will". Giving up after one meeting certainly isn't "aggressive" pursuit.

Obama gave up claiming that the system had collapsed. If so, why did Obama state in February of 2007 that "I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election"? What proof has he offered that it has collapsed? NONE.

The democrats in the media who defended Obama said that the Swiftboat 527 (allowed under the public finance rules) was an example of the system having collapsed. But the Swiftboat 527 and what it did existed long before Obama's February 2007 statement offering to "preserve the strength of the public financing system"? If this is the reason, why didn't Obama say it had collapsed back in February of 2007? Why did he talk about preserving the "strength" of the system? Can you tell us, Pookster?

This likely will change things in future elections. I can't imagine either candidate restricting themselves to any arbitrary amount.

Well, Obama is about change. He was the FIRST candidate to decline public financing — and the spending limits that go with it — since the system was created in 1976, after the Watergate scandals. Somehow, I can't really think this is a good change, though. There was a reason all the other candidates agreed to such restrictions over so many years.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

ETA: As I said once before in another thread, republicans like to disregard the Hollywood crowd. Possibly because so few of them are for their party. But let one of the Hollywood crowd decide to try out politics, and if they are a republican, boy will you guys vote for them. Even if they are the most Hollywood you can get, like president of the Screen Actors Guild.

Nah... I think celebrities be it republican or democrat try to use their status to add weight to their endorsements, when in reality it's the individual who should interpret their choices based on a candidate's policies, and not what some celebrity wants to advertise to them.

Just curious, Pookster. Can you tell us how much of that came from Americans? Because there really isn't tracking for much of it.



Because unlike Obama, McCain didn't LIE when he initially pledged to accept public funding limits.

In February of 2007 Obama declared "If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." He didn't say "may". He said "will". And it appears McCain agreed to his proposal. Obama's lawyers then met ONCE with McCain's. And then backed away from his "will". Giving up after one meeting certainly isn't "aggressive" pursuit.

Obama gave up claiming that the system had collapsed. If so, why did Obama state in February of 2007 that "I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election"? What proof has he offered that it has collapsed? NONE.

The democrats in the media who defended Obama said that the Swiftboat 527 (allowed under the public finance rules) was an example of the system having collapsed. But the Swiftboat 527 and what it did existed long before Obama's February 2007 statement offering to "preserve the strength of the public financing system"? If this is the reason, why didn't Obama say it had collapsed back in February of 2007? Why did he talk about preserving the "strength" of the system? Can you tell us, Pookster?



Well, Obama is about change. He was the FIRST candidate to decline public financing — and the spending limits that go with it — since the system was created in 1976, after the Watergate scandals. Somehow, I can't really think this is a good change, though. There was a reason all the other candidates agreed to such restrictions over so many years.

And as a result Obama even gets a prime-time citcom length commercial on several networks... considering as popular as he is I don't see why he needs to milk that money like a juggernaut... Have you heard about the in-game ads he's getting yet? 18 online playable games to boot... not to mention here in FL, I'm seeing 3 or 4 obama ads per hour

 

[BeAChooser]

Um... yes it did. In the first paragraph. "Consider the cases of Obama donors "Doodad Pro" of Nunda, N.Y., who gave $17,130, and "Good Will" of Austin, Texas, who gave more than $11,000—both in excess of the $2,300-per-person federal limit."

The $2300 cap doesn't apply to Obama. Don't you know that?

 

[MattusMaximus]

I'm going to guess that BAC's recent snarky comments are indicative of... jealousy, perhaps?

 

[BenBurch]

I'm going to guess that BAC's recent snarky comments are indicative of... jealousy, perhaps?

"Panic" was what I was thinking.

 

[geni]

Well, Obama is about change. He was the FIRST candidate to decline public financing — and the spending limits that go with it — since the system was created in 1976, after the Watergate scandals. Somehow, I can't really think this is a good change, though. There was a reason all the other candidates agreed to such restrictions over so many years.

Well yes most people are not going to turn down goverment money. For thr time being the UK appears to have managed to avoid spending tax money on political parties so your system tends to look a little odd.

 

[BeAChooser]

Just curious. Did the Obama campaign ever return the tens of thousands in illegal contributions they received from those brothers in Gaza?

In fact, why didn't the Obama campaign catch the fact that someone was violating the donation limits when he ordered $7000 dollars in t-shirts ... even if they thought the order was from Georgia (but they mailed it to Gaza)?

How many brothers in the end turned out to have contributed to Obama's campaign (last I heard it was three)?

Why didn't the Obama campaign refund the money immediately once it was discovered? Why did the FEC have to write two letters to them questioning these contributions? Why didn't they tell the FEC they'd refunded the money if they had?

Lot's of funny things going on in the Obama campaign.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Lot's of funny things going on in the Obama campaign.

Not nearly as funny (and entertaining) as the majority of your posts, BAC!

 

[MattusMaximus]

"Panic" was what I was thinking.

Ah yes, that too

 

[BeAChooser]

Is there a reason why the McCain campaign made all of its small donor information public yet the Obama campaign refused? What is the Obama campaign hiding folks?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/162403

This summer, watchdog groups asked both campaigns to share more information about its small donors. The McCain campaign agreed; the Obama campaign did not.

 

[BenBurch]

Is there a reason why the McCain campaign made all of its small donor information public yet the Obama campaign refused? What is the Obama campaign hiding folks?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/162403

What they are hiding is an extremely valuable list of committed Democrats.

That list is worth its weight in GOLD in coming elections, and it WILL be used to its fullest potential.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13981

An auditor for the Federal Election Commission is attempting to have his bosses seek a formal investigation into the collection by the Obama for President campaign of more than $200 million in potentially illegal political donations, including millions of dollars of illegal, foreign donations, and has sought a request for assistance from the Department of Justice or Federal Bureau of Investigation. But the analyst's requests have largely been ignored. "I can't get anyone to move. I believe we are looking at a hijacking of our political system that makes the Clinton and Gore fundraising scandals pale in comparison. And no one here wants to touch it."

... snip ...

The FEC analyst says that Obama's filings indicate he has received large, bundled sums of donations from overseas, sometimes exceeding a quarter millions dollars. "It's suspicious, but it's the small donations made by credit card that need to be examined. We've raised red flags on many of these and the Obama campaign just ignores us. After this election, after we've sifted through everything -- if we're allowed to sift through everything -- I am confident that we are looking at perhaps the largest fine every leveled against a national campaign entity."

Wow! But what do you expect of democrats after what we saw the Clintons do?

 

[BeAChooser]

I'm going to guess that BAC's recent snarky comments are indicative of... jealousy, perhaps?

No, MM. I actually think there are very good reasons for not allowing parties to buy elections in this manner ... especially with money that essentially isn't traceable. But then, democrats always have played it fast and lose where campaign funding was concerned. That's why they looked the other way as the Chinese communists bought their party in the 1990s.

 

[332nd]

Is there a reason why the McCain campaign made all of its small donor information public yet the Obama campaign refused? What is the Obama campaign hiding folks?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/162403

That most of the money came from the annual "Black Folks Messin with the Man" fish fry and rib burn... It was good this year. Obama said he was gonna give us our choice of a set of Dubs, never paying taxes again, or a 20 picture porn deal with Blacks on Blondes... Plus I won the Rib burn!

 

[MattusMaximus]

No, MM. I actually think there are very good reasons for not allowing parties to buy elections in this manner ... especially with money that essentially isn't traceable. But then, democrats always have played it fast and lose where campaign funding was concerned. That's why they looked the other way as the Chinese communists bought their party in the 1990s.

ETA: I'm going to say that BAC is displaying healthy doses of jealousy, panic, and delusion at this point. Wow

 

[BeAChooser]

"Panic" was what I was thinking.

Ben, aren't you the least concerned that foreign entities who do not have our interests at heart might be influencing the election in the US through massive, essentially untraceable internet donations?

Aren't you concerned that we keep hearing about one case after another of individuals (many of them even unidentified) contributing to the Obama campaign in excess of the allowed $2300 limit?

It's not a matter of panic. It's concern about whether the Obama campaign really cares about the laws of this country.

We should all remember that the biggest scandals during Clinton years had to do with the DNC and Clintons violating campaign funding laws. The problem was so big that over a hundred people fled the country rather than testify ... with a trail of money (in the millions) that was traced back to potential enemies, like the Chinese Communist military.

Keep in mind that during that time the top General in the Chinese military announced that war with the US was inevitable. Yet the Clinton administration essentially sold access to restricted technology and other secrets in exchange for campaign cash.

My fear is that Obama isn't any different. It certainly doesn't seem like he (or you) care where your contributions come from ... or whether they are legal ... as long as you win. In which case, how far are you (and Obama) prepared to go to win? Say the next election ... when Obama, like Clinton, might control the FBI, IRS and DOJ? Will it be Michelle who masterminds the next Filegate?

 

[BenBurch]

Ben, aren't you the least concerned that foreign entities who do not have our interests at heart might be influencing the election in the US through massive, essentially untraceable internet donations? ...

Not in the slightest. Because that has about as much reality to it as "9/11 was an inside job."

 

[MattusMaximus]

I know I'm asking for it, but here goes...

BAC, do you actually have any evidence for your claims, beyond speculation and rumor-mongering from right-wing rags about Obama's candidacy as a real-life Manchurian Candidate?

Evidence please - put up or shut up.

Or, keep on posting your drivel. It's entertaining to read your silly rants.

Either way I don't care

 

[BeAChooser]

What they are hiding is an extremely valuable list of committed Democrats.

So committed democrats need to hide? Why is that?

Is it because they are people like "Doodad Pro" of Nunda, N.Y., who illegally gave $17,130, and "Good Will" of Austin Texas, who illegally gave more than $11,000?

According to that Newsweek article,

"Good Will" listed his employer as "Loving" and his occupation as "You," while supplying as his address 1015 Norwood Park Boulevard, which is shared by the Austin nonprofit Goodwill Industries. Suzanha Burmeister, marketing director for Goodwill, said the group had "no clue" who the donor was.

... snip ...

"Doodad Pro" listed no occupation or employer; the contributor's listed address is shared by Lloyd and Lynn's Liquor Store in Nunda. "I have never heard of such an individual," says Diane Beardsley, who works at the store and is the mother of one of the owners. "Nobody at this store has that much money to contribute."

The donors names are unknown. So how do you know they aren't from Hamas? Or Bill Ayers? Or the Chinese military? Do you even care?

As far as I'm concerned, in this day and age, there is no excuse for Obama's campaign not catching this illegal funding attempt. A simple sorting of their data base would have discovered this before anyone else. The fact they didn't find it (or if they did, ignored it), tells me that the Obama campaign doesn't really care where it's money comes from or whether the money is illegal. Change, my eye. They are no different than democrats were during the Clinton years. And if they are no different when it comes to abusing campaign financing laws, will they be any different when it comes to abuse of the IRS, FBI, DOJ and military?