 |
|
| |
|
|
|
 Obama Doesn’t Need Your MoneyPosted on Oct 22, 2008By Marie Cocco Urgent deadline! “Your support by Thursday at midnight is absolutely vital,” the Obama campaign’s pitch for a donation cried out from the e-mail that popped into my in-box Tuesday. “Your first donation of $10 or more will provide resources urgently needed before the deadline. And you’ll receive a limited edition Obama-Biden car magnet.” Not that I wouldn’t want to own something that’s a limited edition. But I’ll pass on that magnet. I’ll even yawn at the hyperbole since it’s just campaign rhetoric. But really, who can feel the fierce urgency of now for a candidate who has already broken every fundraising record, and who is outspending his opponent in some states by as much as 4-to-1? After the eye-popping fundraising revelations of the past couple of days, the need that’s far more pronounced is the imperative of acting quickly after November’s election to restore some common sense to the presidential campaign finance system—before we don’t have any system at all. Not that the restrictions are working now. Democrat Barack Obama became the first candidate to opt out of the Watergate-era rules that financed presidential general election campaigns with an allocation of public funds to each major-party nominee. The staggering sums he has raised and the saturation spending he’s now engaged in are tributes to his fundraising prowess. But they are also the tombstones for a system that has served the nation fairly well for more than three decades. Republican John McCain accepted $84 million in public funds, which amounts to an automatic limit on both his fundraising and his spending. Obama raised nearly twice that amount—$150 million—in September alone. The Democrat’s spending in September was $87.5 million. That one-month sum outstrips the total allocated under the public system that nominees are meant to use from the time of their late-summer conventions through Election Day. The Obama campaign portrays its fundraising operation as a miracle of grass-roots enthusiasm, dominated by small donors who might give $10 or so and receive a car magnet. It’s true that Obama has built the best small-donor operation ever. This is a tangible sign of the breadth of his appeal. But it’s also true that small contributions are only part of the story—possibly a small part. The Washington Post has reported that only a quarter of the roughly $600 million Obama has raised over the course of the campaign has come from donors who gave $200 or less. The rest of Obama’s money comes from the same high-end donors who’ve always played a disproportionate role in campaign fundraising. And both Obama and McCain are taking advantage of a loophole that allows their biggest contributors to give as much as $70,100 in combined contributions to their campaigns, to national and state parties and to various other campaign entities. Drawing on an analysis by Public Citizen, The New York Times reported that McCain has received donations of $25,000 or more from 1,800 people. Obama has received $25,000 or more from about 2,000 donors. So who will have the new president’s ear—the person who pointed and clicked his way to a $5 donation, or the donor who polished the jewels for the $25,000 fundraising gala? For all their inadequacies, campaign-finance laws are meant to accomplish several goals. Yes, they force disclosure of donor names and limit the size of checks. But they are also meant to level the playing field by keeping billionaires from dipping into their own wealth to buy an election—or keeping a candidate who opts out of the public-financing system from racking up a lopsided money advantage of the sort Obama now enjoys. Obama seems to have once understood this. Last December, he became an original co-sponsor of legislation by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., that would have fixed the presidential campaign financing system by boosting the sums the two nominees receive. The measure also calls for doubling public funds for a candidate who stays within the system—but who faces an opponent who has opted out and gained a daunting financial advantage. In other words, Sen. Obama supported a measure that would curtail or eliminate the very advantage that candidate Obama now exploits. Does he still support the Feingold plan? Obama’s campaign says he can’t fix a crumbling system by “embracing it in its broken state.” Once he’s president, spokesman Nick Shapiro says, he’ll keep his commitment. Marie Cocco’s e-mail address is mariecocco(at)washpost.com. © 2008, Washington Post Writers Group Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment
|
HOME|Digs|Reports|Arts & Culture|Uncovered|Ear to the Ground|A/V Booth|Cartoons
Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation 
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. |
Joe the Plumber to Report on Gaza—Seriously
Email
Print
Share
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Fark
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Mixx
MySpace
NewsVine
NewsTrust
Reddit
SphereIt
StumbleUpon
TwitThis
YahooBuzz
Jump to Comments
By DHFabian, October 27, 2008 at 7:33 pm #
US policies solidly represent the interests of the big campaign donors. This is why the government has used billions of taxpayer dollars over the past quarter-century to pay the tax bills of corporations (tax breaks-cuts-relief) for them for the past quarter century. It’s bad national policy, but it’s very profitable for politicians. This is why we ended up with a horrendous welfare “reform” that has resulted in so much suffering; the poor aren’t campaign contributors. If you were a politician, would you be more likely to focus on the interests of those who are financing your career, or on leading the country to adopt international human rights standards (per the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights…which the US refused to ratify)
for ALL Americans?
As long as the rich can buy policies politicians, we’ll continue our downhill slide. People have been shouting for real campaign finance reform for decades. It’s not going to happen.
Report thisBy Jon, October 26, 2008 at 9:30 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
“It is a false assumption to conclude that the rest comes from the same high-end donors.”
-OldManCA
“Obama was right, too, to opt out…he knew he could never match the Republican’s capacity to pour money into the process through back-door means.”
Report thistdbach
By Retired Auto Mechanic, October 26, 2008 at 3:53 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
A careful reading of the US Constitution shows the authors intended to protect states with small populations from being exploited by those with large populations. They also intended the national legislative branch do very little.
The following direct quotation from that document with CAPITALIZATION for emphasis makes both clear:
Begin quote:
TEXT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
Article. I.
Section. 4.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be PRESCRIBED IN EACH STATE BY THE LEGISLATURE THEREOF; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, EXCEPT AS TO THE PLACES OF CHUSING (sic) SENATORS.
THE CONGRESS SHALL ASSEMBLE AT LEAST ONCE IN EVERY YEAR, AND SUCH MEETING SHALL BE ON THE FIRST MONDAY IN DECEMBER, UNLESS THEY SHALL BY LAW APPOINT A DIFFERENT DAY.
End quote.
With a few decades of the adoption of the constitution control of elections was taken from the people by a “two-party(my posterior)” system. The method of control was to, with money, determine who was and who was not to be a viable candidate for national office.
As we have allowed a fatal assault on the general intention for National Government to be small, we should face that fact and modify, again, the section of the Constitution which establishes the method of choosing Senators and Congressmen.
If we are to continue “swallowing the Camel” and putting up with a national legislature which meets for a good part of each year and wants to micro manage all aspects of individual activity, we should not make it necessary they spend a majority of the little cranial capacity they generally display in insuring their continued membership in the group of 535.
Amend the constitution, again, to extend the term of congressmen to 6 years - staggered in the manner of current Senatorial terms with a limit of two consecutive terms.
Extend the term of US Senators to 10 years with a limit of one term.
The president should be limited to one 6-year term.
Those serving in national elective office should not be allowed to seek higher office without resigning current office.
Report thisBy Shenonymous, October 25, 2008 at 7:25 am #
It would be good if Obama could distribute his extra campaign wealth to other Democrats running, but it probably would be difficult to do that at this stage of the game. The fact that he has attracted so many dollars says a lot about the dissatisfaction in this country with what Republicans have dished out since Reagan. I hope Obama spends every penny too. If any is left over, it should be put into the coffers of the party to be spent on future campaigns. Winning Congress, which it looks like will happen this time, doesn’t mean it will stay that way. We have to watch the next six years, Congressional years, to see what really happens with a Democratic executive branch and Congress. We think we are right (in the sense of being correct), but we have to make sure we are. Self-criticism is the only way to be truly human.
For real change in Washington, vote Obama/Biden
Report thisBy Tony Wicher, October 24, 2008 at 9:21 am #
The internet has changed everything. It has increased the democratic power of the people by many times. “People Powered” Howard Dean was the first to run an internet-based campaign. Obama just took it to an new level. This changes everything. The money Obama has does represent the power of the people. The internet does make it possible for the people to unite to counter the power of big money in politics.
Power to the people! Vote Obama!
Report thisBy Lucienette, October 24, 2008 at 7:42 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
What is fair? Couldn’t poor, old McCain sell half his cars and homes to run?
Report thisBy kathy kang, October 24, 2008 at 5:20 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
As a former suppoter of Hillary,now supporting Obama,I feel the need for fundamental changes in the way our elections and campaigns are run;both major parties need to sit down and come clean after this election,with the willingness to admit their faults for the sake of democracy;they must find a better way,if not perfect,to run our next presidential campaign. As Marie Cocco pointed out,the huge amount of fund on Obama’s side is a tangible sign of the breadth of his appeal that will be translated at the ballot box as well.
For those Obama supporters who are angry with Cocco’s assertion need to take a hard look at the reality. I am proud of her for pointing out the key issues with courage,although I am not in agreement with every point she made in her article. It is a shame that in the end,if Obama is elected,those people on opposite side will cry foul by asserting that Obama “bought” the election. The huge successful fundraising result does give the public “Appearance” of unfairness;the mere appearance alone will be enough to have the losing side cry foul—-I can already hear it now. As a proud American who adopted this land 39 years ago,I have voted for Reagan and Clinton,each time with full confidence in my decision. We all need to take a deep breath as we wait for the election day,taking our divided opinions aside,keeping in mine that we are not picking a “Pope”—-there’s NO perfect human being. After some serious “Soul Searching”,the only question we need to ask ourselves is,“Who will be the better candidate to get us out of huge mess at home and abroad?”
Report thisBy michele hemenway, October 24, 2008 at 5:00 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I wish now Id’ not said that she’s an Ob hater. That caused you to m iss the real point. The Ob campaign is using the funding to take good care of those working on the campaign. THEY ARE WALKING THE TALK.
Report thisI am a teacher and have donated to Ob,too.
I was very happy to hear this bit of news.
ENough said.
As for holding feet to fire,etc. I don’t agree, but thats’ ok, I don’t need to be right.
By OldManCA, October 23, 2008 at 3:46 pm #
“The Washington Post has reported that only a quarter of the roughly $600 million Obama has raised over the course of the campaign has come from donors who gave $200 or less. The rest of Obama’s money comes from the same high-end donors who’ve always played a disproportionate role in campaign fundraising. “
It is a false assumption to conclude that the rest comes from the same high-end donors. My wife and I donated more than $200 to the Obama campaign (though far less than the maximum. We have never donated more than $50 in any prior presidential campaign (and we started voting in 1972).
We are hardly high-end donors.
Report thisBy Alan, October 23, 2008 at 3:14 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Campaign Finance Reform? Double the amount they receive? There’s already a debilitating torrent
Report thisof vapid 10 second broadcast and netcast adverts
which are practically the totality of the
“political discourse” in this campaign.
We don’t need to feed rupert any more moolah!
By m, October 23, 2008 at 1:49 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
For those with cash to spare, the ACLU and the EFF can always use a donation. These two organizations, and a few others, seem to be far more functional in protecting the US and the rights of its citizens than any of the elected politicians of any of the political parties.
The executive is the primary villain and the Congress has made itself superfluous. The courts may be all that we have left
Report thisBy tdbach, October 23, 2008 at 12:38 pm #
Michele, you’re not alone among commentators here who think Cocco “hates Obama.” But it’s nonsense. She just calls them the way she sees them, and if it turns out to be critical of Obama, so be it. But Obama supporters - especially “Cyrena” - have little tolerance for criticism of their man. It started with Cocco’s obvious preference for the hated Hillary, but it continues now.
Marie’s right to be appalled at the excesses of our elections these days and to call for real, deep reform - one hopes leading to completely publicly-funded elections.
Obama was right, too, to opt out when he realized he had an incredible capacity and team to raise money for his campaign over the internet, because he knew he could never match the Republican’s capacity to pour money into the process through back-door means.
Marie wants to hold Obama’s feet to the fire, to make sure that the success he’s had raising money doesn’t cause him to abandon the hope to make election financing more fair, sane, and egalitarian. And she’s right to do it.
I might not like the headline, “Obama doesn’t need your money”, because this thing is far from over, and I wouldn’t want him to lose because his money dried up. But I agree with the theme of her article.
Report thisBy michele hemenway, October 23, 2008 at 4:39 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
This writer has been an obama hater all along. She was a Hillary supporter and now ......
Report thisPlease spare us your sanctimonious lectures about fundraising..
My son was asked to work for the campaing and he was offered a great salary with health insurance benefits for a limited on the ground position. I was amazed at how fair the wage and that there were benefits!
It costs money to treat people in the campaign fairly.
WHen I heard that If felt really good about the money I had sent, albeit very little relatively speaking.
By Inherit The Wind, October 23, 2008 at 3:17 am #
I hope Obama spends every nickel! I’d like to see him use 1/3 of that money for election day efforts: get-out-the-vote drives—making sure likely Democrats get out to vote and can vote. And I’d like to see him make sure he has a legal “dream team” in place already working on the dirty Re-Thug-licant schemes that will be hatched to try to steal the election. He’s right to be nervous and not over-confident.
I don’t think he needs more money. But other Dems sure do. Bruce Lunsford in Kentucky can whip Mitch McConnell. El Tinklenberg is not only competitive but ahead of Maureen “Jo McCarthy” Bachman. Al Franken is winning but hasn’t closed the sale against Norm Coleman.
What I don’t get is the DCCC and DSCC saying they need money and if you give it, other congessman and senators will match 2 for one….if they can do that, why do they need my money????? It doesn’t parse.
Report this