Politics and Money

drfong · 06-10-2008, 12:34 AM

I think one of the issues that is going to be important in the upcoming election will be lobbyist money and "changing Washington". First I am wondering how people feel that Obama has continued to make an issue out of the other candidates taking PAC and Lobbyist money and he has not. In reality he has received tons of money from lobbyist. The DNC now says it will operate under the same rules that Obama has made for himself but they can keep all the money they already received, they just wont take more. I wonder if this feels like political double talk to most of you. Let me also say I do think Obama has done anything wrong by taking money legally based on election rules, just that he is being deceptive by saying he doesn't take "washington" lobbyist money yet he takes money from lobbyist not registered as Washington Lobbyist. He also takes money from the spouses of registered Washington lobbyist.

2nd and what I am more interested in is what do you think would be a good way to reform campaign finance. Or do you feel there does not need to be any reform.

cshellenberger · 06-10-2008, 12:39 AM

The fact is Lobbyists and special Interests RUN this country, not the President or the people. Obama is jsut like any other politician, He'll continue to take money from the Lobbiests because THAT'S how DC works. Every Bill that comes through is LOADED with pork $$$$ for special interests or lobbies. If it weren't this country would spend a fraction of what we do now.

bluedawg · 06-10-2008, 01:28 AM

My memory sucks, I admit it, but didnt HRC raise more money for her campaign then Obama did?

drfong · 06-10-2008, 01:32 AM

No, Obama has raised far more money than anyone. HRC had to loan herself money which is one reason she suspended her campaign rather than withdrawing. She can still raise money with a suspended campaign.

bluedawg · 06-10-2008, 02:08 AM

So my memory does suck after all.

gills · 06-10-2008, 03:00 AM

I'm not entirely sure how election financing works in the US, but in Canada there are strict rules on how much a person or organization can donate to a political party. Perhaps the this would be a good thing in the US to adopt? Here's a link to the Elections Canada regulations

Aussie Red · 06-10-2008, 03:22 AM

Hence the reason a real politician from a third party that would work for the people will not be elected.

RonE · 06-10-2008, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gills

I'm not entirely sure how election financing works in the US, but in Canada there are strict rules on how much a person or organization can donate to a political party. Perhaps the this would be a good thing in the US to adopt? Here's a link to the Elections Canada regulations

There are limits in the U.S. as well but, because there are attorneys involved, there are all sorts of ways to get around it.

FriendsOfZoe · 06-10-2008, 08:17 AM

Honestly, I'm not sure what you can do. Obama's trying to be better about it, but the fact is that there are just as many lobbyists who traditionally support the democrats as the republicans and Obama not only cannot alienate them, he probably cannot win without the money they will give (I continue to donate what I can, but needless to say I will never be maxing out my $2000 because I simply cannot afford it).

I was pretty disappointed to wake up the morning after Obama became the presumptive nominee to see him addressing the pro-Israel lobby. That one stung too because I feel that the pro-Israel lobby has been the cause of many of our problems in the middle east. Obviously I realize the importance of Obama addressing them, given political realities and his background...but still...I would have preferred to see him addressing a labor union or something.

One major bit of campaign reform I would enact is NO MORE TV ADS. None whatsoever. That wastes the most money and makes campaigns too negative. No one wants to watch them either.

bluedawg · 06-10-2008, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FriendsOfZoe

needless to say I will never be maxing out my $2000 because I simply cannot afford it.

You plan on limiting your earning potential?

FriendsOfZoe · 06-10-2008, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluedawg

You plan on limiting your earning potential?

????

You can donate up to $2000 to a candidate per election cycle.
Obama raises much of his money through repeat small donations...this was a big advantage of his over Hillary, because she had big donors give her $2000 at once and he had lots of people give him $20 or $100 at a time...and they could then donate again later in the campaign which helped to boost him as time went on. I will give my $25 as often as I can, but I know I won't be able to mete out $2000, even for Obama. It's more important that I pay my rent.

drfong · 06-10-2008, 02:35 PM

Melissacato, please keep your post on topic. If you want to start your own thread and talk about your ideas, go right ahead. If you continue to post off topic I will just delete them.

MelissaCato · 06-10-2008, 05:04 PM

Ohh sorry ... I though this was a thread on politics and money.

Sorry.

“Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber.”

drfong · 06-10-2008, 06:37 PM

No problem, and it is about politics and money, just specific to campaign finance and hopefully some ideas to come about reform.

bluedawg · 06-10-2008, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FriendsOfZoe

????

You can donate up to $2000 to a candidate per election cycle.
Obama raises much of his money through repeat small donations...this was a big advantage of his over Hillary, because she had big donors give her $2000 at once and he had lots of people give him $20 or $100 at a time...and they could then donate again later in the campaign which helped to boost him as time went on. I will give my $25 as often as I can, but I know I won't be able to mete out $2000, even for Obama. It's more important that I pay my rent.

So why would you say,

Quote:

Originally Posted by FriendsOfZoe

I will never be maxing out my $2000 because I simply cannot afford it.

Implying you will never earn enough to max out your donation?

drfong · 06-20-2008, 03:11 AM

Today BO has decided to forgo public funding. It's not that he wants to get hundreds of millions of dollars instead of limiting himself that bugs me. It's that he blames John McCain for him going back on his word. According to BO it is because John McCain won't speak up against 527 groups. I think McCain did speak out against his own party for running ads in NC that were trying to link Wright, Obama and candidates in NC, BO has not denounce MoveOn.org or the ad that misrepresents McCain on Iraq. He has even done it himself on the campaign trail. This guy is a real piece of work. I can not believe anyone doesn't see him for what he is, just another politician.