In Nevada, Obama Loves 527s, Hated Them In Iowa

Remember this?
Obama criticized Edwards for saying that he doesn't approve of 527s, while at the same time not disavowing a group, Alliance for a New America . . . "You've got these outside groups that are helping out candidates and it's a way of getting around the campaign finance laws. . . . [Y]ou can't say yesterday you don't believe in 'em, and today you have three quarters of a million dollars being spent for you. You can't just talk the talk. The easiest thing in the world is to talk about change during election time."
No kidding Senator Obama. You sure aren't walking the walk in Nevada: [More....]

The radio ad aired by one of Obama's labor allies re-injects ethnicity into the Democratic primary contest in sharp terms. . . . A spokesman for Obama, Bill Burton, did not condemn the ad or the independent spending specifically, but instead attacked Clinton. . . . "[Complaints] [c]oming from a campaign that is repeatedly launching absolutely false attacks against Sen. Obama, it takes some chutzpah. . .
Mr. Burton and the Obama campaign are redefining chutzpah before our very eyes. Let's face it - on the lobbyists phony issue and now on the 527s, Barack Obama is a complete and utter hypocrite. He believes none of this. It is all just phony political posturing. That is politics I know, but the refrain that Obama is going to reinvent it is as phony as a three dollar bill.
< LBJ, MLK And The Civil Rights Acts | Does Justice Only Mean Death? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    527 expenditure for me, but not for thee (none / 0) (#1)
    by sammiemorris on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:39:11 PM EST
    His camp's reaction shows that if anyone is shameless, its Senator Obama.

    BTD on a roll (none / 0) (#2)
    by GOPmurderedconscience on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:47:31 PM EST

    It looks like the little break you took was absolutely worth it. You have been on a roll since you got back.

    I can't remember when you were so prolific. One great post after another.

    If my memory (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jgarza on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:15:17 PM EST
    Serves me correctly, JE is the only Dem that has ever said he wouldn't use 527's. He criticized Edwards for saying he wouldn't use them and then using them.  Obama has never said he wouldn't use them. So i don't see what is wrong with him helping him now?

    Your memory serves you very poorly (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:45:15 PM EST
    Obama promised to demand that any outside expenditures by allies would be repudiated and asked to stop.

    My gawd, is there even one Obama supporter who will deal with this?


    Obama (none / 0) (#16)
    by DA in LA on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:10:44 AM EST
    did indeed criticize Edwards about 527s.  Krugman raked Obama over the coals because of the comment.

    It was a grade A stupid comment from Obama, who has no right to say anything about lobbying or funding of any kind.


    Nevada Dem (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:43:40 PM EST
    Your kanguage is unaccpetable at Talk Left because I do not get to expose you as you deserve.

    Your comment has been deleted and I have asked that you be banned.

    Please do not post at this site. You are not welcome here.

    How's my kanguage? (none / 0) (#17)
    by DA in LA on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:11:10 AM EST
    Hine. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:00:24 AM EST
    Unilateral disarmament doesn't work. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Geekesque on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:10:46 AM EST
    Glad he realizes it.

    Is there some inconsistency here?


    But, I don't see Clinton calling off AFSCME and Emily's List.  So, he shouldn't turn the other cheek.

    FINALLY (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:19:48 AM EST
    An honest Obama supporter.

    Obama was a hypcrite then right? It was all pohony Bs wasn't it?

    Heck, if Obama had union support in Iowa, he would have dome the same thing wouldn't he?


    Can a person get elected President and (none / 0) (#12)
    by Geekesque on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:25:17 AM EST
    not be flexible in adhering to their principles?


    At the same time, quite frankly, I think people want a leader who's not afraid to get a little blood and dirt on him.


    Heh (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:35:29 AM EST
    "flexible" is what they are calling it these days?

    Inartful quote editing (none / 0) (#9)
    by Tano on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:15:18 AM EST
    Your reporting of this story is just not right.

    The issue is the how the Obama campaign responds to this ad. You start by quoting from their spokesman, but cut off the quote at exactly the point where he does, in fact, address your concern.

    "Sen. Obama believes, and has said clearly, that campaigns should fund themselves and discourages supporters from spending outside the campaign," he said"

    Now, maybe you find that to be an inadequate response - an insuffcient denunciation. Fine. If that is the case, then point to the quote and criticize it. But you leave the impression that the spokesman failed completely to address the issue, and that is false.

    Then you go further by titling your post with an assertion that goes to an extreme - that Obama "loves" 527s - the implication being that somehow the campaign has embraced and defended their use.

    Sorry, but this comes off as hackery.

    Umm (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:18:31 AM EST
    It is entirely inadequate and when asked to SPECIFALLY denounce THIS AD they refused to do so.

    I do not take your cxomment at all.

    They needed to denounce THIS AD.

    Edwards said those magic words and Obama said that was not good enough.

    IT is not good enough for him either then.

    Please stick to the facts.


    These are the facts (none / 0) (#13)
    by Tano on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:30:02 AM EST
    My comment was not about Obama, it was about how you reported the story. Both in your editing and your titling you distorted the reality to make it appear far more egregious than it was. Maybe that gives the story more buzz, but at the cost of some of your credibility.

    As to the ad itself - although it attacked Hillary in the context of a competitive race against Obama, and thus clearly helped him, it also addressed a very real issue for the union itself. There is no question that the Clintons are supportive of the lawsuit - the big dog made that perfectly clear - and the upshot of the lawsuit was to make it more difficult, if not impossible for their members to participate.

    So they have every right, in pursuit of their own interests, to criticize Clinton for supporting the lawsuit. Maybe Obama should ask them not to mention his name in the course of such a criticism, but there is no reason for him to denoucne the entire ad.


    I disagree with you entirely (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:34:46 AM EST
    The Obama campaign REFUSED to condemn THIS AD.

    I reported about THIS Ad.

    You now attempt to defend the Obama hypocrisy, which, let's face it, isd what you wanted to do all along.

    Your defense is not worthy of response.

    It in no way addresses the point of my post - the hypocrisy of Obama.

    I am fine with unuions doing whatever they want. Heck, let's hope they do a lot of it in the GE.

    This episode demonstrates  that Obama is a rank hypocrite on this issue.


    Is this a 527 doing the ads? (none / 0) (#19)
    by illissius on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:21:52 AM EST
    According to this it is not:

    Unlike earlier labor efforts undertaken on behalf of Clinton and Edwards in earlier contests, the UNITE HERE commercial is not paid for by an independent "527 group." It is paid for by the union, which is permitted as a means of communicating to its 60,000 members, Bohner said.

    If that is so then (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:13:32 AM EST
    I think UNITE could be in legal jeopardy.

    I think the ad would be violative of labor union expenditure laws.

    A Spanish language radio ad to communicate to its members? That stinks to high holy heck.


    Sounds like it is wrong (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:17:00 AM EST
    Here is another news account -

    "The buy is allegedly being funded by the Unite Here Campaign Committee on behalf of the Culinary Workers Union, which has endorsed Obama."

    I think it is a 527.


    You all should learn something about unions (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ozium on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:24:49 PM EST
    ... before commenting on things like this.  

    The UNITE-HERE ads in Nevada were NOT 527 ads because they were paid for by the union's federal PAC.  Federal PAC money can only consist of money donated directly by members for the purposes of political contributions, ads, etc.

    The reason SEIU participated in a 527 in Iowa is because the national union did not endorse Edwards.  States that endorsed Edwards could only use "soft dollars" to support him -- that is, money coming out of the general treasury of a union, not money donated by members to the union's PAC. Unions can only advocate directly for the election of a candidate if they use hard dollars.  Because of the recent Supreme Court decision, unions can use general treasury money ("soft dollars") for 527 "informational" advertisements, but they cannot expressly say "VOTE __".  

    That is the difference.  The blogger on this site should do some research before equating all union expenditures with 527s.


    "Paid for by UNITE HERE Campaign Committee."

    That sounds like a 527 to me.


    Googling suggests (none / 0) (#26)
    by illissius on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:42:17 AM EST
    that it's a PAC. Didn't find anything definite, though.

    A PAC? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:50:27 AM EST
    I think that could be problematic legally too.

    This is too directed at a particular candidate, especially the support for Obama.

    I think this could be an illegal ad.

    A 527 can run these types of ads. I am pretty sure a PAC can not.


    I dunno about the legal issues (none / 0) (#29)
    by illissius on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:58:09 AM EST
    Wouldn't the Hillary campaign have pointed that out if it were so?

    I dunno (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:11:03 AM EST
    Maybe they are doing the legal work now.

    uh, no (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ozium on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:26:26 PM EST
    It's perfectly legal to advocate for the election of a candidate, so long as you use PAC money -- ie, money that members contribute to their union's PAC so that the union can make precisely these kinds of advertisements and communicate with the general public.

    Do some research.


    Finally (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:20:33 AM EST
    I can not find the text you are quoting in the link you cite.

    Bah (none / 0) (#25)
    by illissius on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:35:15 AM EST
    Sorry, I pasted the wrong link.

    Here's the right one.


    He could be running his union into legal trouble.

    Good Morning (none / 0) (#23)
    by athyrio on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:20:29 AM EST
    Good Morning...Big T et al, did you guys get any sleep at all??? The fight goes on, I see....:-)

    I notice (none / 0) (#30)
    by athyrio on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:06:04 AM EST
    that the Hillary camp is being relatively quiet about attacks on Obama which is good cause he seems to be shooting himself in the foot lately....

    just saw this (none / 0) (#34)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:46:28 PM EST
    it might be that the press is actually reacting to the charge of letting Obama get a pass.  Now they are actually paying attention a bit more.  It is vey healthy I think.