Obama Smashes Money Record

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   
By the time this campaign is over Obama's campaign will have spent over $600,000,000 dollars!!!
Mostly on advertising.

This is an obscene amount of money to spend on any election.

The only good thing from this is that the money is probably mostly from overseas (since Obama's campaign is not transparent with this issue we will never know exactly who bought Obama('s) campaign) and it is staying here in the U.S.

My question is, should the amount of money spent on a campaign be regulated closer and capped?
www.boston.com...
www.opensecrets.org...





[edit on 29-10-2008 by deathhasnosound]




posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 01:25 PM
link   
With all that money, he should distribute his own wealth to the droves of welfare voters he already has. That would truly be a display that he cared for the people. Of course it will not happen. As with ALL politicians he is only out for self promotion and power.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Saying he only spends, oh lets say 500 million, he gets to pocket the remaining 100 million right??

[edit on 29-10-2008 by deathhasnosound]



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by deathhasnosound
 


Presidential and Congressional campaign funding shouldn't be regulated or capped. The entire private financing system should be given the boot and replaced with mandatory full public financing through the government. The 527s could still run their ads if they wanted (otherwise, its a violation of the 1st amendment), but the campaigns themselves should receive no private donations. It should be as level of a playing field as is possible.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   
What I dont understand is how he spent all this money yet he's only neck and neck with McCain (open for interpretation of course).


Whats sad is hes now accepting untraceable money, as if he didnt have enough.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by AndrewTB
Whats sad is hes now accepting untraceable money, as if he didnt have enough.

Yet another difference between Obama and McCain, HONOR
Obama has none.
McCain is shrouded in it.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   
UNtraceable Money? What is this guy a Chicago crime family member? Where are his support and donation rosters?

Is it all socialist and Alqueda money, or is tomcruise and the gangsta labels buying most of it?

[edit on 29-10-2008 by Illahee]



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illahee
UNtraceable Money? What is this guy a Chicago crime family member? Where are his support and donation rosters?

Is it all socialist and Alqueda money, or is tomcruise and the gangsta labels buying most of it?

[edit on 29-10-2008 by Illahee]
We will never know because "Unbeknown to the Obama team" they disabled the function on his website that matches the credit card holder name with the name they enter online. These type of contributions total over $300 million, or more than half of his total.

(ppssst...can you say middle east?)


[edit on 29-10-2008 by deathhasnosound]



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

That is how candidatess are gauged, by the money they amass. Has been that way for a long time. To me that says that Obama has a clear lead and this thread sounds like sour grapes.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by deathhasnosound

Originally posted by AndrewTB
Whats sad is hes now accepting untraceable money, as if he didnt have enough.

Yet another difference between Obama and McCain, HONOR
Obama has none.
McCain is shrouded in it.



Hahaha!!! True Obama has none but either does McCain.. If either of these people had any honor they would not want the presidency. All they want to do is push there ideals on people.. that's not honor that's greed!



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 
Negative. How do you explain the disabled function on the website?
A "mistake" or a dishonorable way to intake illegal contributions?



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by deathhasnosound
Negative. How do you explain the disabled function on the website?
A "mistake" or a dishonorable way to intake illegal contributions?



Uh huh and where is that in your source material? I didn't find it there, could you point it out to me?



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by deathhasnosound
Negative. How do you explain the disabled function on the website?
A "mistake" or a dishonorable way to intake illegal contributions?



Uh huh and where is that in your source material? I didn't find it there, could you point it out to me?

Ok I will do the footwork for you, I know you are busy moderating and all:


The main problem, according to Ms. Franzi, seems to be that Mr. Obama’s Web site apparently does not require that the donor’s information match the information on the credit card making the contribution, while Mr. McCain’s seems to have stricter standards. thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com...



In May of this year I noted the fact that the Obama campaign ran the only website that permitted donations from foreign countries without any proof of citizenship. deathby1000papercuts.com...



In July and August, the head of the Nigeria’s stock market held a series of pro-Obama fundraisers in Lagos, Nigeria’s largest city. The events attracted local Nigerian business owners.

At one event, a table for eight at one fundraising dinner went for $16,800. Nigerian press reports claimed sponsors raked in an estimated $900,000.

The sponsors said the fundraisers were held to help Nigerians attend the Democratic convention in Denver. But the Nigerian press expressed skepticism of that claim, and the Nigerian public anti-fraud commission is now investigating the matter.

Concerns about foreign fundraising have been raised by other anecdotal accounts of illegal activities.

In June, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi gave a public speech praising Obama, claiming foreign nationals were donating to his campaign.

“All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man,” the Libyan leader said. “They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency..."

Though Gadhafi asserted that fundraising from Arab and African nations were “legitimate,” the fact is that U.S. federal law bans any foreigner from donating to a U.S. election campaign. newsmax.com...


I patiently await your apology on the sour grapes comment.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   
$600 million spent without a wink or a nod. He is just warming up for the extra $trillion + he wants to spend. Spending like this is absolutely ridiculous. Classic dem. form though. Spend spend spend oh by the way we've spent to much so we're going to have to raise your taxes just a bit and cut those welfare checks we have planned for you.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
The entire private financing system should be given the boot and replaced with mandatory full public financing through the government.


That's regulation!

If the public wants to contribute to their candidate, they should be able to. Free market, right?



It should be as level of a playing field as is possible.


I'm AMAZED at how you and others can demonize government interference and regulation for some things and praise it for others, when it suits you.

:shk:

[edit on 29-10-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 
Just wondering, does it bother you at all that you voted for someone that has illegally taken money from overseas (read: middle east) governments?



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by deathhasnosound
Ok I will do the footwork for you, I know you are busy moderating and all:


Nothing about "leg work" but if you're going to state something you've got to prove it.



The main problem, according to Ms. Franzi, seems to be that Mr. Obama’s Web site apparently does not require that the donor’s information match the information on the credit card making the contribution, while Mr. McCain’s seems to have stricter standards. thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com...


Uh huh. Did you read this article? I did:


To be fair to the Obama campaign, officials there have said much of their checking for fraud occurs after the transactions have already occurred. When they find something wrong, they then refund the amount.

But a New York Times analysis of campaign finance records looking for obvious anomalies in donor information quickly found more than a dozen contributors to Mr. Obama using obviously fictitious name. This was a tiny fraction of Mr. Obama’s donor pool, but it appeared from the analysis that Mr. McCain had far fewer apparent fake names among his donors.

Unlike Mr. Obama, Mr. McCain provides on his Web site a searchable database of all of his donors, including those who fall below the $200 threshold that the Federal Election Commission requires campaigns to itemize in their reports. The political blogger Marc Ambinder recently reported that searches of this database turned up seven contributions from someone named Jesus II of Las Vegas giving a total of $851 to Mr. McCain.




In May of this year I noted the fact that the Obama campaign ran the only website that permitted donations from foreign countries without any proof of citizenship. deathby1000papercuts.com...


Death by a 100 Paper Cuts? Their motto, "DBKP The Worldwide Leader in Weird." Are you serious?



newsmax.com...


Also from that source:

An oxymoron:


Obama has raised nearly twice that of John McCain's campaign, according to new campaign finance report.

But because of Obama’s high expenses during the hotly contested Democratic primary season and an early decision to forgo public campaign money and the spending limits it imposes, all that cash has not translated into a financial advantage — at least, not yet.


So he's raise nearly twice the amount of money but he doesn't have an advantage?

And:


Federal law does not require the campaigns to identify donors who give less than $200 during the election cycle. However, it does require that campaigns calculate running totals for each donor and report them once they go beyond the $200 mark.

Surprisingly, the great majority of Obama donors never break the $200 threshold.


No wrong doing there.

Next:


Until recently, the Obama Web site allowed a contributor to select the country where he resided from the entire membership of the United Nations, including such friendly places as North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran.


And:


The Obama camp complied sluggishly, prompting a more detailed admonishment form the FEC on July 30.


Hmm, a little bias there? Is there accuracy in this? Maybe but I'm not holding my breath. Google can be a good tool but it can also blow up in your face.


I patiently await your apology on the sour grapes comment.


I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you either.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by deathhasnosound
Just wondering, does it bother you at all that you voted for someone that has illegally taken money from overseas (read: middle east) governments?


I haven't seen any proof that he has illegally taken money from middle eastern governments, so... no.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If the public wants to contribute to their candidate, they should be able to. Free market, right?


Umm, no. Not free market.

A free market is a market in which property rights are voluntarily exchanged at a price arranged completely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers.
source


A Campaign contribution in no way exchanges property rights to anything except the money involved, there is no property EXCHANGED, just donated $$'s.

The public has an opportunity each and every year to contribute to the election fund, it's a little box on your tax return that says, "Do you want $3 of your federal tax to go to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund?"

As of 2007, there are about 138 million taxpayers in the United States. That would equal (if all checked yes) $414 Million or $207 Million per candidate.

That should be more than enough to run an honest campaign

edit to delete left over text


[edit on 10/29/08 by redhatty]



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 
*sigh* For some people it doesn't matter where the proof comes from it will never be good enough once they have made up their mind about something. No use wasting more of my time on a brick wall.
g'day.





new topics
top topics
 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join