Raising 150 Million in One Month Should be a Warning for Things to Come.

Originally posted by TheRooster
I am not so blindly devoted to one man I am willing to sell my country out to see him elected.

And, of course, anyone who supports Obama, is... Right?

And my guess is if BHO raised $150,000 in one month, he beat pauls $4mil one day total.

So it's OK to hold the record for ONE DAY donations, but to hold the record for ONE MONTH donations is simply outrageous!?!?!

Your prejudice is showing...

Orig posted by TheRooster:I am not so blindly devoted to one man I am willing to sell my country out to see him elected.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And, of course, anyone who supports Obama, is... Right?

BH, I have never laid witness on ATS to one BHO supporter who questions where all of this money is coming from, not one. In fact I believe you champion the belief that it all comes from "citizens". If you can open your mind long enough to bring yourself to read something written by newsmax, this makes for very interesting reading. In case you refuse to, please allow me to post a brief quote:

The Obama camp claims to have 2.5 million donors in all. But until now, they have kept secret the names of the overwhelming majority of these money-givers. According to a Newsmax analysis, the Obama campaign finance records contain just 370,448 unique names.


Even accounting for common names such as Robert Taylor or Michael Brown, which can signify multiple donors, Obama’s publicly known donor base is less than 20 percent of the total number of donors the campaign claims to have attracted. But the identity of the other 2 million donors is being kept secret.

And to respond to this remark...

So it's OK to hold the record for ONE DAY donations, but to hold the record for ONE MONTH donations is simply outrageous!?!?!

BH, I think you mis-read the post, the guy from Scottland was accusing me of being biased, I simply stated a fact that Ron Paul probably no longer holds that record because BHO had a big month, nothing to do with prejudice!

[edit on 10/20/2008 by TheRooster]

[edit on 10/20/2008 by TheRooster]

reply to post by newguyhere2


Actually, the Bushes give away alot to charity, I think it was over 125,000 last year if not more.

This is why Obama is raising so much money:

Obama Withdraws Public Finance Pledge to Gain Cash Advantage

Despite pledging earlier this year to conduct his national campaign with publicly committed funding, Barack Obama announced this week his plan to refuse public finances and bankroll his entire national campaign with private funds.

What this means is that he’ll be able to rely on a larger cash flow, and his campaign will have much more say over where the money is spent.

This could potentially give Obama a double advantage over his opponent John McCain as fall approaches. The McCain campaign has struggled financially, and has said it would rely on public funding.

www.buzzle.com...

This and there is suspicion that some of those donations have come from illegal overseas sources.

Originally posted by jam321
Especially since they don't have to report who contributed 200 dollars or less. It could very well be a wealthy person putting down names to make it look like average people are giving.

Sure. Definitely a possibility I suppose. That would be o-so-political!

There could very well be wealthy people doing the same thing on the McCain side too. Just as possible.

This would apply to both candidates, no?

Originally posted by TheRooster
This man has shattered all previous records for fund raising, and it seems none of you are concerned about it at all.

Concerned? It was expected.

A record, by its very nature, has the inevitable fate of being broken

Considering the fact that the past 8 years has exponentially increased the Publics overall interest in the political system, this don't surprise me at all. Likewise, I would have been surprised if a record was not broken this election.

reply to post by newguyhere2

Originally posted by newguyhere2
I think Bush gave himself a raise to an annual salary of $400,000.00
Plus perks.

You think, eh?

Article 2, Clause 7 of the Constitution prohibits that.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Originally posted by jam321
Especially since they don't have to report who contributed 200 dollars or less. It could very well be a wealthy person putting down names to make it look like average people are giving.

Sure. Definitely a possibility I suppose. That would be o-so-political!

There could very well be wealthy people doing the same thing on the McCain side too. Just as possible.

This would apply to both candidates, no?

That would be a real trick since McCain has opted for "public financing", no?

reply to post by TheRooster


And I am sure if you looked they gave similar amounts to McCain... its called covering your bets.

On another front... I think Sarah Palin has a future after the election portraying Tina Fay on SNL.

[edit on 21-10-2008 by grover]

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

This would apply to both candidates, no?

Yes, both candidates apply. I think both candidates should reveal all their donors regardless of amount.

It is a corrupt system. Both should be mandated to take public finance in the future.

Some interesting reads on this topic.
I have links but for some reason I cannot get them to work once they are posted..but I guess one could go to google and search obamanigeria.org
When you get there, register, then read comments left by members. Especially read member "Tunde" comments that raising $ for Obama in Nigeria is against the law, then read comments made by a Fred Latimere, pretty much saying that Nigeria has ppl in the USA that can legally vote and donate..very interesting read.


[edit on 21-10-2008 by MissysWorld]

Originally posted by jam321

It is a corrupt system. Both should be mandated to take public finance in the future.

Similar to what Rooster was suggesting earlier?

1 dollar from each person 3 years prior to election?

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


I guess you are asking me. I said candidates should be mandated to take public Finance. Rooster said and I quote " mandatory donation of one dollar from every tax payer on his/her return for three years leading up to the election year, split evenly three ways."


I think the volunteer system as is would do just fine. I don't jive too much with taxing the people to finance a campaign. They should volunteer their few dollars if they so desire.

I agree with Rooster about splitting 3 ways. About time we let the independents play a role in these elections.

Well workin on the canadian campaign trail, just prior to our election, our employees were raising roughly $3000 - $8000 a in a regular 10.5hr shift on the phones... there is diehard supporters out there yes that will donate the maximum which here in canada is $1100 per supporter, and they do this for tax breaks...

But the average gift that we'll receieve from a contributer or a cold call is anywhere from 100 to 200 dollars... thats just in canada... im sure the tactics being used in the states is a little more versatile considering the amount of people in the country...

our company has 3 more centers in canada, so roughly around 5 to 6 hundred employed telemarketers... just think about the money these political parties raise through us... yes they have to pay us for the contracts but the rest of the cash, they clearly come out large...

And thats all I gotta say about donations today...

So why I typed that was to give some insight on approaches he could have used to gain that much economic stability in his campaign... if he did use the help of telemarketing im those numbers fit perfect...