Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

“Funding Notes: Obama seizes a key advantage”

Ron Robinson, writing at NRO:

Barack Obama’s campaign benefitted from a record haul in September, taking in more than $150 million. He has raised more than $600 million total in his presidential quest, and is outspending his rival three-to-one in television ads. Even Democratic veterans, including New Mexico’s Bill Richardson, marvel at this edge. “Obama has 40 local offices in my state — 40!” notes the governor.

Meanwhile, the McCain campaign decided to accept $84 million of taxpayers’ money to finance the final months of his campaign. This is certainly consistent with McCain’s championing so-called “campaign-finance reform” in one of his famed “reaching across the aisle” efforts to appease the Left (the same Left that’s raising record amounts of money).

McCain’s approach — turning to the government instead of individuals for support — rests on the assumption that there is something wrong, something manipulative, when individuals are asked to give to a cause they hope to advance. “The dam is broken,” he has said. “We’re now going to see huge amounts of money coming into political campaigns, and we know history tells us that always leads to scandal.”

But history doesn’t actually tell us that. Yesteryear’s more freewheeling fundraising efforts — including the Goldwater and Reagan reform movements — led to anything but corruption in the electoral process.

[…]

There is a steady wail from the Left, and from some on the Right, that the government must intervene to stifle politicians’ fundraising efforts. Yet, as my co-author and I detail in Funding Fathers, history shows that individual contributions — publishing a book without a major publisher, privately financing a groundbreaking speech, or pleading for money on a TV ad or in a direct-mail letter — often have a transformative and positive impact on American public life. Rather than being disparaged, regulated, or halted in favor of governmental financing, such acts of generosity ought to be applauded.

Ironically, McCain must now sleep in the bed he helped make — even while those he counted on to bunk next to him at a showy bipartisan slumber party of free-speech regulation have decided to stay out late chatting up just about anybody who might by them a drink…

(h/t Jason M)

27 Replies to ““Funding Notes: Obama seizes a key advantage””

  1. Rich Cox says:

    I don’t like McCain-Feingold anymore than others, but I have given props to McCain for going into this knowing what the score was, and manning up to live by his own doing.

    It is sad to see O! lie, cheat, and steal his way through the process.

  2. Randy says:

    With that kind of bucks, it’ll be the Obama campaign buying the drinks, even if it is only MD 20/20.

  3. Randy says:

    Oops. I think I just dated myself.

  4. Rich Cox says:

    RandyNo… you must denounce yourself however. racist!

  5. Randy says:

    I was going to, but I’m sort of lazy, and didn’t get around to it

  6. Makewi says:

    I don’t think there should be any limitations on financing apart from the source must be an American citizen or business. Spending doesn’t equal a guaranteed win, so limitations seem to me to be a restriction on our free speech rights. I understand that this is not a popular opinion, and I do welcome reasoned criticism.

  7. Randy says:

    And you would have gotten criticism from the left, right up until the part where Obama raised $600 million. Now, not so much.

  8. Jeffersonian says:

    I’m wonder if Judicial Watch, that perennial fly in the ointment, will manage to pry open Obama’s fundraising black box somewhere down the road. I’m very curious as to whom is paying the bills in his campaign.

  9. Mr. Pink says:

    There has to be something wrong with having to raise a billion dollars from random sources. No way that can work out good.

  10. Randy says:

    It depends on what your definition of “good” is. It seems to be working out OK for Obama; and his sources seem to be more random than most.

  11. Darleen says:

    Jeffersonian

    pry open Obama’s fundraising black box somewhere down the road. I’m very curious as to whom is paying the bills in his campaign.

    John Galt, Hitler, Osama, Hank Reardon, …. the credit card fraud is startling … even IF they return the money, think of the interest those millions earned as a “free loan”…

  12. happyfeet says:

    NPR campaigned so hard to get campaign finance reform but now Baracky rakes in tons and tons of fraudulent contributions and it doesn’t seem like they care no mores. I don’t get it.

  13. Mr. Pink says:

    I think the founders would be disgusted at the current election process.

  14. eaglewingz08 says:

    Money doesn’t necessarily corrupt but when Obama and the dems turn off the AVS credit card fraud checking programs, then the opportunity for scandal grows exponentially.

  15. Mr. Pink says:

    Mr. Common sense says “Noones going to give you a billion dollars without strings attached.”

  16. D Kite says:

    There are three ways this can turn out.

    McCain wins and everyone learns that money doesn’t buy elections.

    Obama wins and turns out to be a flake. People will react with revulsion since they either donated or watched the well greased machine buy the election.

    Obama wins and turns out to be anywhere from moderate to brilliant. It cements in everyone’s mind that you get what you pay for, and spurs huge demand for overpriced trinkets, which singlehandedly lifts the US economy out of recession.

    See. There is no bad news.

    Derek

  17. JD says:

    When Obama and the dems turn off the AVS credit card fraud checking programs, the media started talking about Gov. Palin going shopping.

  18. N. O'Brain says:

    Campaign finance reform: no limits as to individual or entity contributions, no cash, immediate publication on the internet.

  19. JD says:

    No limits. Full and immediate disclosure.

    Since the Senate Dems refused to fill that vacancy at the FEC, there is nobody to actually hear complaints to them. I guaran-fucking-tee that the shenanigans we have seen up to this point will pale in comparison to what they do in October. They know that the media will cover for them, and once they win, many years down the line they might have to pay a fine. Oooooooooooo.

  20. ThomasD says:

    nd spurs huge demand for overpriced trinkets, which singlehandedly lifts the US economy out of recession.

    Oh Man, thanks I really needed that.

  21. Bob Reed says:

    …history shows that individual contributions — publishing a book without a major publisher, privately financing a groundbreaking speech, or pleading for money on a TV ad or in a direct-mail letter — often have a transformative and positive impact on American public life. Rather than being disparaged, regulated, or halted in favor of governmental financing, such acts of generosity ought to be applauded.”

    And, it gives all of the people who contribute to feel like they have beena part of their candidates campaign, victorious or otherwise…

    The only campaign finance reform need be:
    -No foreign donations accepted, directly or by proxy
    Unlimited personal and corporate donations.
    Any cash donations must be accompanied by signed affadavit of donor disclosure
    -Immediate, daily, reportage of all donations and expenses.

    And, any vacancies on the FEC must be filled as soon as possible, so that we don’t have a situation like this cycle; where Senate leader Harry Reid falls down on the job so that the FEC is understaffed and unable to do their job…

    Some say coincidence, but in a year where there is at least the appearance of ACORN and many of the Democrat candidates trying to game the system…? Well is it coincidence or convenience, I’ll let you all decide…

  22. SDN says:

    And of course it isn’t just O!; a number of the down ticket races apparently are running the same donation fraud software.

    If a government is installed through massive and obvious fraud, do we owe it any obedience?

  23. plainslow says:

    Has he bought carbon offsets for his offices and travels?

  24. Jeffersonian says:

    Campaign finance reform: no limits as to individual or entity contributions, no cash, immediate publication on the internet

    Add to that no foreign money, and I’m all-in.

  25. McGehee says:

    I’d kind of like no out-of-district money, actually. Only those who can vote for a candidate — legally, anyway — should be allowed to donate to him.

    Legally, anyway.

  26. EW says:

    600 million dollars, it just blows my mind! how do we hear ANY of these guys words on the economy when they are spending 400 to 600 million dollars on their campaigns? It’s hard to get my mind around that. And i am not sure all the money is even what’s winning this deal for Obama. I mean the liberal illuminati are running away with this think in the media. Yea, some of Obama money is going toward the media drive but if he didn’t spend any money on video or media he would still be killing it in the media because of all the liberal media support. Bottom line, Obama is winning on the platform of this generation which equals he is winning period.

  27. McGehee says:

    EW, I challenge you to post one substantive comment — just one — without using the word “illuminati.”

    I’ll bet you can’t.

Comments are closed.