Obama, if this is actually legal, it's brilliant. What say you?

[wyldwolf]

(edited for copyright purposes , proud patriot Moderator )

The website has the look and feel of Barack Obama's official page, and the headline says it all: "Bank it for Barack." The site asks for contributions of up to $5,000 per person to help the Illinois Democrat win the crucial state of California.

The group sponsoring the Web page is not Obama's campaign, but an independent political action committee called Vote Hope 2008, which says that its goal is to help Obama become president and that it will spend $2 million to get out the vote for him.

Federal law prohibits political action committees, or PACs, from spending more than $5,000 in support of a candidate.

But Vote Hope's founders argue that this restriction does not apply to their group because they do not plan to coordinate their spending with Obama's campaign. Thus, there's no limit to what they can spend promoting him, they said.

What's more, the group said contributors who have given the maximum $2,300 individual donation to Obama's campaign can give $5,000 to Vote Hope 2008, the maximum individual donation to a PAC.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/07/21/pac_tries_new_tactic_to_boost_obama_run/?page=2

I'm far from an expert on campaign finance, but I have worked a few campaign and do belong to a PAC myself. This sounds a little fishy. They're a 527, can't can't support a candidate directly, yet they appear to be supporting a candidate directly. If it proves to be legal, it's brilliant. I'll be interested to see what the FEC says.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/07/21/pac_tries_new_tactic_to_boost_obama_run/?page=2

[frogcycle]

1. it might be "brilliant"

but being the most artful dodger of campaign finance laws doesn't particularly ingratiate a candidate to me

[Jackpine Radical]

3. Thanks for expressing my thoughts so concisely.

[geek tragedy]

6. The campaign is not involved with this group.

"Bill Burton, Obama campaign spokesman, when asked about the effort, distanced the campaign from Vote Hope 2008, saying: "We appreciate the tremendous grass roots. But if people want to help out our campaign, we prefer they would do it directly through our campaign."

[JANdad]

49. I have a problem

with any candidate that can raise $5k from "numerous" individual donors...

Who are the people that can afford to plop down the $2300 plus another $5k? Not the kind of people that feel my pain...thats fo sure!

edit for sp

[JDPriestly]

53. Is this how the Swift Boaters got their money?

Did they have some method for exceeding the campaign donation limits?

[Kagemusha]

2. The Supreme Court recently slapped down some restrictions.

I think those involved "issue ads" that nonetheless may favor a candidate over another by implication, being banned within a certain time before an election; the ban was struck down. So, "the law" is now a little different than what it was the last time Congress spoke about it.

Having said that, the PAC's whole position seems to be, they could freely choose to spend the money differently and there's nothing the donors could do but whine. That's making blind faith into a legal virtue. And, if it's contrary to the FEC's interpretation, well, there's not much of a track record of preemptive strikes during a campaign before the presidential vote. That'd be prior restraint and all that, and money, in politics, is speech, legally speaking.

[Cassandra]

4. Are you ratting Obama out as a rival to Hillary or...

are you hoping it's legal so that Hillary can make some use of the strategy? Just saying that I always wonder about your agenda.

[wyldwolf]

5. the funniest post so far today!

Uh, no, the article appeared in a major newspaper.

But If I wanted to "rat out" someone, I wouldn't do it on DU, I would do it somewhere where it would have an effect.

[Cassandra]

11. But you would be happy to sow some discord...

about Obama on DU.
Having experienced the Glob during the 70's, I have some problem thinking of it as a major newpaper but I guess it is, particularly as the Times and WaPo have been converting themselves into rags.

[wyldwolf]

13. So you would propose an information black-out on DU so your tender feelings aren't hurt?

:eyes:

No thanks. Newsworthy political articles belong on a political discussion forum.

[Cassandra]

15. Interesting straw man you've got there.

Not suggesting not talking about something; just noting that you, in particular, are happy to bring up something about candidates other than Hillary that might be negative, in a disingenuous way. BTW, my feelings aren't tender about this; at the moment I prefer Edwards, although any Democratic candidate would be preferable to any Republican. I just don't like the inevitability meme. I want to hear from everyone on the issues; an extraordinary concept, I know.

[wyldwolf]

16. interesting definition you have of straw man

:eyes:

What you are proposing is people not post news that might make other DUers uncomfortable. You have a phobia of all things Clinton - including her supporters - and believe there is some nefarious reason for every move we make.

[Cassandra]

20. New straw man.

I do not have a phobia about all things Clinton. I have concerns that under her leadership we will not get single-payer health care (or universal) and that, as the previous trade agreements further wear down the job situation in the US, that she will be too wedded (in multiple ways) to those agreements to fix them.
I think you have a particular agenda and question whether it is in evidence when you start threads like this one (which have a whiff of concern troll about them). The more you attack me the more I question. I don't spend my days looking for stories that might undercut other Democratic candidates (for example, I will defend to the death Hillary's right to have breasts and show a bit of cleavage; that was incredibly stupid story courtesy of the dimwitted MSM). I want to hear policy positions from the Democratic side and am happy to enjoy nasty threads about corrupt Republicans that the MSM is reluctant to persue.

[wyldwolf]

23. second misuse of the word for you - let's not turn this into another diatribe on Hillary

Deal with the fact you don't want potentially harmful news about Obama posted on DU. Whoever does has dark motives - as if DU would ever make a difference electorally. :eyes:

[Cassandra]

25. I was defending Hillary.

Straw man:
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Your every response to me has been a straw man; ascribing beliefs to me that I do not have and did not express.
I question potentially harmful news about Obama posted by a strong Hillary supporter and worry, in your efforts to have Hillary win the nomination, that you may give ammunition to Republicans.

[wyldwolf]

28. yeah, you were defending her from the "cleavage" story, that's about it.

I have concerns that under her leadership we will not get single-payer health care (or universal) and that, as the previous trade agreements further wear down the job situation in the US, that she will be too wedded (in multiple ways) to those agreements to fix them.

That's defending???

Then you parrot the absurd KOS meme of "concern troll" which is a borderline DU rules infraction? Spare me.

Now that I see how potentially negative stories on Obama rankles you, I'll post more. At least when negative Clinton pieces are posted, I debunk the content. You just go after the messenger.

[Cassandra]

32. That's stating a potential policy difference.

I notice you didn't say anything that might allay my concerns that her policy preferences might not be mine.
Yes, it's worth defending her in the "cleavage" non-story, since that will probably be the talk of the stupid pundits this weekend.

[wyldwolf]

35. like I said, you can turn this into a diatribe on Hillary on your own time

[Cassandra]

38. Diatribe on Hillary?

I fear for your sanity.

You do your preferred candidate no favors by characterizing a policy difference as a diatribe. After the last 6+ years, I've about had it with you're-with-us-or-against-us politics.

[CTLawGuy]

7. perfectly legal

I worked for America Coming Together and they could raise as much money as they wanted as long as they never actually endorsed anyone.

[wyldwolf]

8. that's where it gets a little confusing to me

A 527 like MoveOn.org contributes money to Democratic issue awareness which helps candidates.

THIS PAC is about Obama, and their goal is to get Obama elected. So they haven't actually said "we endorse Obama," but their actions say otherwise. We'll see. Like I said, I hate dealing with FEC stuff.

[MonkeyFunk]

9. but it seems like this group

will explicitly be endorsing Obama.

It's an end-run around campaign finance laws - I don't like it.

[Tellurian]

10. The convoluted contradictory language sounds "so" Republican...

But then again, Obama resonates with Republicans.

Sen. Obama Throws Down the Public Financing Gauntlet.

February 23rd, 2007 at 9:11 pm EST

Barack Obama for President » FEC Keeps Obama’s Public Financing Challenge on the Table said:

<…> As was reported two weeks ago, Sen. Obama asked the FEC if he could raise money for both the primary and general elections, with the option of returning the general election money after the primary in order to be eligible for public financing.

I guess, Obama's altruism for campaign finance reform is just more of his empty rhetorical purity:

"According to the New York Times, “the money the public system is expected to provide in 2008 — about $150 million for a candidate’s primary contests, nominating convention and general election campaign — cannot keep up with the flow of private contributions available to the candidates.” While preferable in theory, this would tie his hands in a race against opponents able to raise unlimited sums from private donors.

That’s why Sen. Obama — in typically bold and forward-thinking fashion — has issued a constructive challenge to his potential Republican opponent (as well as his Democratic colleagues): join me in a clean race by returning your private contributions and accepting public funds.

As the Times notes:

In a Feb. 1 filing with the Federal Election Commission that was made public on Wednesday, Mr. Obama said that he, too, would seek enough private donations to remain competitive, but with a twist. He asked the commission if he could begin soliciting private donations with the understanding that he might later return the money to his contributors. If he won the Democratic nomination, he could then strike a deal with the Republican nominee to return their private donations and use only public money for the general election. For 2008, that would limit each general election campaign to about $85 million.

http://obamarama.org/2007/02/08/sen-obama-throws-down-the-public-financing-gauntlet/

edited to add another layer of smarmyness to the mix:

"Since campaigns spend the money as it comes in, Obama would have already spent the "private" donations. Even assuming he could work some kind of deal, where would he get the cash to refund the money to the donors?

And how could anyone prove that he had given back the money, seeing as how campaign spending reports are filed long after the spending occurs? My guess is that Frank James and his friends will do their Inspector Clouseau routine investigating their hero on this.

If Obama accepted the private donations prior to the convention and didn't win the nomination, then he would be under no legal or moral obligation to return the funds.

There are several more, rather obvious, problems with this alleged proposal (the actual text of which the Obama for president Tribune blog (aka "The Swamp") doesn't print), but the proposal has served its purpose. It's given a sympathetic reporter an excuse to fawn over St. Barack."

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2007/02/obamas_doa_campaignfinance_ide.html

[Ethelk2044]

12. You belong to a PAC and I am quite sure it is one that supports Hillary

Now is that not the pot calling the kettle black when it is black itself.

:shrug:

[wyldwolf]

14. you make an assumption, then draw a wrong conclusion from it

You also sound completely clueless. We forbid endorsements in primaries. My pac helps local and state level Democrats. We also don't hire lawyers to explore loop holes in FEC laws like this Obama PAC appears to have done.

Your pot/kettle cliche simply doesn't apply. :shrug:

Nice try, though. :rofl: !!!!!!!!

[Tellurian]

17. Thanks, for responding for me, WW

that particular poster refuses to understand, it is still on my ignore list and I therefore cannot respond.

[Ethelk2044]

18. Obama is not affilicated with the PAC therefore you are the one that is

clueless. He distanced himself from this PAC when it first announced. Therefore if you would pay attention to the news you would have known That.

[wyldwolf]

19. Whether or not Obama is affiliated with it is not the point

FEC laws state donors to PACs cannot "give with the knowledge that a substantial portion will be contributed to, or expended on behalf of, that candidate."

Here is this PAC's website:

http://votehope2008.com/

BIG Picture of Obama. Headline that reads "Bank it for Obama."

Only someone without a clue in the world (like you) would not see this money is being "contributed to, or expended on behalf of" Barack Obama. It looks illegal and is definitely a dodge of campaign finance laws.

[Cassandra]

21. So is it Obama's legal problem...

or the PAC's?

[wyldwolf]

24. if it IS a legal problem, it will be the PAC's

[Cassandra]

26. Thank you.

The title of this thread suggested that the legal problem is Obama's, or that Obama has something to answer for.

[wyldwolf]

29. it only suggested it to you. I never said or implied Obama had a legal problem

[Forkboy]

30. "if this is actually legal" would imply what then?

[wyldwolf]

34. let's clear this up

My OP headline:

Obama, if this is actually legal, it's brilliant. What say you?

"Obama" - the OP pertains to Obama.

"if this is actually legal, it's brilliant." - if the activity being described is legal, it's brilliant.

Why is it that there are several in this thread that had absolutely no problem with the headline of the post content and discussed it the way it was meant to be discussed.

Yet, a few reactionaries who see a dark agenda behind everything that is negative about their guy wants to argue over a left out word in the excerpt.

Ponderous, fucking ponderous.

And you, of all people, should know that when I post a piece meant to be critical, there is no mistaking it.

[Cassandra]

39. "What say you?"

Does that refer to Obama or us? (Obviously, I'm not expecting Obama to respond to you in person). Is this a challenge to Obama's supporters or are you asking for legal advice (and why ask here)?

[wyldwolf]

48. I'm asking what people on DU think. Some people answered without reading in any insidious motive

[maximusveritas]

33. He's not the only one; Look at the first reply to your OP n/t

[wyldwolf]

36. what about it?

[maximusveritas]

22. It looks like you edited your excerpt to purposely mislead people

The last sentence of your excerpt says "Vote Hope has set up what is known as a 527 organization, which can collect unlimited funds from individuals but is not allowed to support a candidate directly ."

However that sentence in the actual article reads: "Separately, Vote Hope has set up what is known as a 527 organization, which can collect unlimited funds from individuals but is not allowed to support a candidate directly ."

That "Separately" is key, as the article goes on to explain in the next paragraph that: "Both Vote Hope groups have the same name, which has led to some confusion, including reports that a few wealthy individuals are contributing large amounts to a Vote Hope 527 formed to elect Obama"

Why are you trying to mislead people? Don't try to plead innocence. I'm not buying for one second that it was just a coincidence that you left off that word AND that you failed to read the whole article you were posting.

[wyldwolf]

27. no, I included key parts of the article.

You people are SO damn paronoid.

The link is in the OP twice! Anyone can read the article.

The last sentence of your excerpt says "Vote Hope has set up what is known as a 527 organization, which can collect unlimited funds from individuals but is not allowed to support a candidate directly ." However that sentence in the actual article reads: "Separately, Vote Hope has set up what is known as a 527 organization, which can collect unlimited funds from individuals but is not allowed to support a candidate directly ."

Sorry to burst your bubble, Nancy Drew, but leaving out the word "separately" doesn't change the meaning of the passage.

Obama supporter are getting real good at Spin Spin Spin. :rofl:

BOTH vote hope groups are under one umbrella. Same organization. Different FEC filing.

This is the third instance of possible skirting FEC rules with Obama's name linked to it. Good old Chicago politics.

[maximusveritas]

31. You can pick key sentences, but you can't just leave words out

And of course the "separately" is a key word. The following sentence makes it clear that there has been confusion because of it. That's why you chose to leave it out and then go on exploit this confusion in your comments by saying that they're a 527 and supporting a candidate directly. It's going to be hard to for you to spin yourself out of this one.

[wyldwolf]

37. I can do anything in this respect I want to. That word did not alter the meaning...

I think your tin foil hat is showing

[draft_mario_cuomo]

43. third instance of possible skirting FEC rules with Obama's name linked to it."

I am just curious what the first two were?

[wyldwolf]

50. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3332818&mesg_id=3332829

http://techpresident.com/node/382

[draft_mario_cuomo]

57. Thanks nt

[TeamJordan23]

40. It sure is fishy, why you leave words out of a sentence.

I can understand leaving the whole sentence out, gut leaving key words out?

[ncabot22]

41. Don't be naive

If he cut and paste the sentence as originally written, then he couldn't skewer what it actually says. Thus, he wouldn't have a point. :)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

42. This is a great test for Obama and his rhetoric

While it is unlikely that such a massive effort (aiming for $2 million) was created without the knowledge of at least some in the Obama camp's inner circle, we have no hard evidence of this and should give BO and his campaign the benefit of the doubt. However, if Obama is serious about his rhetoric he should publicly denounce this group. If Obama comes out against this group they will have little choice but to cease their activities. It is hard to see a PAC for Obama, which is trying to skirt existing rules, having any legitimacy after Obama denounces it. Of course, the ball is in Obama's court.

[ncabot22]

46. His campaign distanced itself from the group

"Bill Burton, Obama campaign spokesman, when asked about the effort, distanced the campaign from Vote Hope 2008, saying: "We appreciate the tremendous grass roots. But if people want to help out our campaign, we prefer they would do it directly through our campaign."

American campaigns (both parties) are so dependant upon raising money it is pathetic. It creates an uneven playing field for lesser known candidates. I truly hope you get election reform soon. Offices should not be purchased, you know?

A friend of mine met John Edwards once. Said he was a really nice guy and is supporting him. :)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

47. Thanks for the info, I am glad to hear BO's campaign has spoken on this

And thanks for sharing your story. I hope more people choose to support him over the next 6 months. :bounce:

[William769]

44. If they want to waste their money on a lost cause (California) let them.

Once again when sizzle meets fizzle. More power to them.

[TeamJordan23]

51. The arrogance of Clinton supporters is amazing. nm

[William769]

54. Just so you know.

We are not conceded, just convinced. :)

[Like It Is]

45. American Disgrace!

American Politics has become BUY THE VOTE! What a stinking shame. The most guilty party to it all is the Media for not blowing the lid off of it, in fact they condone and promote it.

[Chichiri]

52. This is a loophole that the pukers constantly use.

We need to eliminate it.

But until it's eliminated, we might as well use it. After all, even though Obama might send a polite request for these guys to stop, he can't MAKE them stop, can he? :D

[Hippo_Tron]

55. This is nothing new, "Issue Ads" only can't literally say "vote for" or "vote against"

But they can spend 30 seconds talking about how great Barack Obama and saying that we need him to be President. I think there's actually 14 magic words that make an issue ad no longer an issue ad and those aren't very restrictive at all.

IMO I think Issue Ad laws should be re-written so that they actually have to talk primarily about issues and not candidates.

[Indy_Dem_Defender]

56. I don't see where this has anything to do

with the Obama for America Campaign because these are Independent Expenditures. The Obama campaign doesn't consult, collaborate or provide financial assistance to anyone or any group that becomes an IE.

[illinoisprogressive]

58. what is the problem. jealous Hillary doesn't have people who want to raise for her.

these people got to together and want to help Obama.
But, no one wants to do so for Hillary so, I gather it is jealousy.
Obama supporters are committed and creative.
Hillary's are just trying to stay awake.