Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama's use of money questioned

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
whirlygigspin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:31 AM
Original message
Obama's use of money questioned
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID...


Clinton implies PAC donations flouted law

"Hillary Clinton has raised questions about Democratic rival Barack Obama's use of a political action committee to funnel money to Democratic candidates in New Hampshire and other key early voting states...At issue is how candidates use their leadership PACs, which are designed to distribute money to other candidates and political committees. Candidates are forbidden from using leadership PACs to directly advance their campaigns, campaign finance experts said. After the Washington Post reported the donations earlier this week, the Clinton campaign released a statement implying that Obama was flouting campaign laws.

"It is our understanding that a candidate's campaign is barred from using the candidate's leadership PAC to benefit his or her campaign which is why we shut down Hill PAC when Senator Clinton announced her run for the White House," the statement said. "On the campaign trail, Senator Obama is outspoken about his desire to reform the campaign finance system, so it was surprising to learn that he has been using his PAC in a manner that appears to be inconsistent with the prevailing election laws."
Obama's campaign responded by denouncing the statement and upping the conflict, attempting to demonstrate larger differences between the candidates on financial disclosure.

"Whatever happened to the confident frontrunner who said she wouldn't attack other Democrats just two weeks ago?" Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement. "The latest personal attack from Hillary Clinton is a completely false attempt to misrepresent Barack Obama's full disclosure of his campaign finances.

"Senator Obama's commitment to disclosure is one that Hillary Clinton does not share, and until Senator Clinton is willing to make this commitment by disclosing her White House records, the list of donors to her husband's presidential library, how much her bundlers raise, and releasing her personal tax returns to the public - she's not really in a position to point fingers at others," Burton said.

--outch! fling much mud?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:36 AM
Response to Original message
1. It seems that "Mr. Big Talk" thought he could slide this one under the radar.
Edited on Wed Nov-28-07 05:36 AM by oasis
:spank: Here's what the law thinks about your "Politics of Hope".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 07:06 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. sounds a bit slick to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
18. The Clintons are bold-faced lying
It is not illegal to donate money to campaigns, they are just flat out lying to say so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:27 AM
Response to Original message
2. PACS sure are a two edged sword.
On the one hand, people will contribute to a PAC run by a high viz individual so there's money to help others who are less well known.

On the other hand, that dough can be, and often is, used to both help and politically aggrandize the supplier of the cash. And timing on distribution is everything.

PACS played a HUGE role in delivering us the Congress in 06, and were it not for them, we'd be seeing a Republican replacing Fat Denny as Mistah Speekah.

So it's important to keep that in mind before decrying PACs out of hand.

I think, like it or not, Bill Clinton's business--the shit HE controls as a former President (and for which he needs permission from Bush, as well, to release) --is just off limits. It is.

Yes, they are a "two fer" but at the same time, they aren't. Going after the Senator with a sorta side-swiped "Make your HUSBAND release WH records and donor lists" demand is just .... cheesy. Rookie-ish.

It is just as bad as someone saying to Michelle Obama "Hey, Michelle, MAKE your husband dig up those state legislative files he claims he doesn't have! Come on, he's YOUR husband--lean on him!"

I wish all the candidates would spend less time playing gotcha and more time talking about specific issues. My primary is a month earlier, I gotta start making up my mind, and this bullshit isn't helping.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:29 AM
Response to Original message
3. IF we time limited the campaigns, they wouldn't need so much money.
No one should have to spend so much time raising money to run for a job that pays so damn much less. It would make anyone suspicious of their motives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 07:30 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. God, am I ever with you there
These campaigns should start in September.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Benhurst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. I couldn't agree with you more.
Not too long ago, progressive Democrats were united in saying the campaigns were too long and were being corrupted by money, an argument for public financing.

Now too many partisans of this Democratic candidate or that are using the nauseatingly vast sums of money raised by their candidates as proof positive he or she has leadership ability and support of the people. Enough, already! The system is corrupt from top to bottom.

And why haven't our people addressed the issue of electronic voting and our corrupt elections?

My fear is that we're headed for our third stolen presidential election.
I can hear the talking heads now, "America wasn't ready for a woman. American wasn't ready for an African American, etc., etc., etc." Well, this American isn't ready for another stolen joke of an election; but I fear that is where we may be headed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. Yep. If the votes are counted we win. If not, we're destroyed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. America's big. Britain gives 6 weeks. I'll give 6 months.
See? I'm being fair here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #6
16. Edwards started it by announcing in December 06
It's sort of ironic, isn't it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 07:23 AM
Response to Original message
5. There is no FEC violation
Leadership PACs donate money to other candidates. It's one of their primary missions to help elect other Democrats. Nothing in the law speaks to the timing or says that presidential candidates who have leadership PACs cannot continue donating through them to other Democratic candidates. In the course of it, they do gain influence. Pumping money into early primary states for a year or two in advance of a campaign, as Clinton did do, brings the same influence and possible endorsements. What's the difference? No difference. The fact of the matter is Obama's contributions did not necessarily bring with them endorsements. There is no evidence of any quid pro quo. The donations were duly filed with the FEC, with no attempt to hide them. Nor did he exceptionally benefit.

Here is how it went in New Hampshire, for example, where three candidates who received donations from Hopefund endorsed Obama and three candidates who received donations from Hopefund endorsed Clinton:

Among the local officials who received $1,000 from Obama's Hopefund PAC were New Hampshire state senators Harold Janeway, Jackie Cilley and Martha Fuller Clark. All have endorsed Obama.

The PAC also contributed $1,000 each to Sens. Iris Estabrook, Kathleen Sgambati and Lou D'Allesandro, all of whom later endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton. The PAC gave $6,000 to Gov. John Lynch's campaign war chest; Lynch has not endorsed in the presidential contest.

Ten county Democratic committees in New Hampshire received $1,000 each from Obama's PAC and the state Democratic Party received $5,000. The Iowa Senate Majority fund and the Iowa House Truman Fund, political groups that assist local legislative candidates, received $30,000 each from the PAC. Their New Hampshire counterparts received $15,000 each.

The Hopefund also contributed to 62 Democratic senators, congressmen and federal candidates across the country in contributions ranging from $2,500 to $5,000. Among the recipients were Democratic Reps. Carol Shea-Porter and Paul Hodes of New Hampshire, who received $4,000 each, and U.S. Senate candidate Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, $5,000.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7081378...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. And Obama's followers were expecting a refreshing change from their "visionary".
I hope their disappointment in this self described, "agent of change" won't discourage their future participation in the political process. :-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #9
20. I am not in the least disappointed, so not to worry nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walk softly Donating Member (182 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #5
21. GREAT POST
thanks for providing this information
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 08:24 AM
Response to Original message
8. Quite the Karl Rove-style counter attack by Obama's hit squad.
The partnership Obama made with Bob Novak was just the tip of the iceberg.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BenDavid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
10. You cannot run from what is being reported about Obama's
Edited on Wed Nov-28-07 11:21 AM by BenDavid
past association with some corrupt people:
Obama's office linked to indicted fundraiser - USATODAY.com
Obama's Office Linked To Rezko (Obama caught being less than truthful)
An Obama Patron and Friend Until an Indictment - New York Times

Clinton returns money, sets precedent - USATODAY.com

I don't want to be said I am piling on.

Ben David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. It sounds bad until you learn the details about the indictment
such as the fact that Tony Rezko is an Arab-American immigrant businessman who donates a lot of money to various Democrats including the governor of Illinois. Mr. Rezko and his family were in Lebanon when the indictment came down; he flew back to the US and turned himself in. Given their close ties with local officials, I think most developers can be made to look bad. Ask former Alabama governor Siegelman if George Bush's Justice Department would ever prosecute someone for political reasons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
13. Hmmm...what's this about Clinton using leadership PAC money
From the OP's link:

Before announcing her candidacy, for example, Clinton used her leadership PAC to pay salaries to employees who would later become high-ranking members of her presidential campaign. She also used the PAC to donate to candidates and Democratic efforts in key presidential nominating states. In October of last year, for example, Carol Shea-Porter, now a New Hampshire congresswoman, received a $2,500 contribution from Clinton's PAC.


So Team Clinton is making some kind of point about Obama using leadership PAC money....hmmm...

:rofl:




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. Has Carol Shea-Porter endorsed anyone?
Didn't think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
14. Umm, Senator Clinton did the same thing
"Before announcing her candidacy, for example, Clinton used her leadership PAC to pay salaries to employees who would later become high-ranking members of her presidential campaign. She also used the PAC to donate to candidates and Democratic efforts in key presidential nominating states. In October of last year, for example, Carol Shea-Porter, now a New Hampshire congresswoman, received a $2,500 contribution from Clinton's PAC. "


Now, in theory she wasn't a candidate then, but:



"Leadership PACs are "another pot of money for the politician to raise; yes, it's supposed to be used differently than campaign money, but it's all with the intent of raising the politician's political profile," said Massie Ritsch, spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics.

Ritsch saw little difference between using leadership PAC money before candidates officially announce their presidential ambitions and after. "When we saw people thinking of running for president showering contributions on officials in New Hampshire and Iowa, it was pretty clear then what the goal was," he said. "It's not any more clear now that they're a declared candidate."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
17. The Clintons will say anything
She hired consultants for thousands of dollars a month who suddenly endorsed her. But donating money to candidates has always been done and the Clinton people are being bold-faced liars to suggest otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 02:38 PM
Response to Original message
22. "Clinton implies PAC donations flouted law."
Edited on Wed Nov-28-07 03:36 PM by AtomicKitten
Ah, yes. The ubiquitous implication of wrongdoing. The gaping hole in that implication is that there is no FEC violation, ergo legal.

Nice try.
Thanks for playing.
Drive through.

On edit: No worries. Maybe Obama has an overdue library book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:16 PM
Response to Original message
23. Obama's New Politics looks a lot like the Old Politics he claims to dislike
He says one thing and does another
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
24. This post against Obama is light weight compared to Bill Clinton claiming he opposed the Iraq war
from the beginning, this post is fluff... Get ready for President Barack Obama in 2008.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Yeah, Bill Clinton is going to lose a lot of votes over that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ilovesunshine Donating Member (289 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Bill isn't running.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ripple Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Of course he is.
And voters don't even have to write him in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Nov 23rd 2014, 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC