The Obama Rules For Independent Expenditures

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:42:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

Let me start with this statement - that all politicians are, by definition, shameless hypocrites. And I expect that most of them will do whatever they are allowed to get away with in terms of hypocrisy. And all credit to the Obama campaign for exploiting the Obama Rules to the hilt.

Here, from the conservative publication, the NY Sun, comes the latest on the Obama Rules:

Senator Clinton's campaign is charging Senator Obama with hypocrisy for denouncing independently funded advertising campaigns which supported his opponents in Iowa but saying little about similar efforts being mounted now on his behalf in Ohio. . . . The Clinton campaign's salvo against Mr. Obama came in response to what the New York senator's aides said was a plan by a supermarket union, the United Food and Commercial Workers, to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on pro-Obama television advertising in Ohio between now and the March 4 primary. A spokeswoman for the UFCW, Jill Cashen, confirmed late last night that group funded by union members will roll out TV ads across Ohio tomorrow which underscore the Illinois senator's commitment to universal health care and other issues. . . .[MORE]

And in one of the most laughable of political conventions, the Obama campaign said:

A spokesman for Mr. Obama said the Illinois senator has consistently urged independent groups to steer clear of the presidential race. "While Senator Clinton has benefited from more than $5 million in spending from outside groups and said nothing, Senator Obama has long said that he would prefer those who want to support him do it directly through the campaign," the spokesman, Tommy Vietor, said.

Well, that makes it all better of course. I admit that I have a personal peeve against sanctimonious outrage about campaign finance purity. It is truly the issue of the phony. Anyone and everyone knows that no one honors the spirit of any of the campaign finance laws and/or lobbying restrictions and whatnot. 527s anyone? You want to get money out of the system? then get money out of the system - go for full public financing of campaigns. The rest of it is just a joke.

Barack Obama is benefitting greatly from outside expenditures and it saddens him greatly. Riiiiight. He is all that is just and good. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is perversing our great and wonderful political finance system by benefitting from outside expenditures. She is Evil Incarnate.

By the Obama Rules anyway.

< The Obama Garb Flap | Mandatory Minimum Rally In Advance of Hearing Tomorrow >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Obama Rules For Independent Expenditures | 32 comments (32 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Because Obama's plan truly isn't (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by athyrio on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:38:11 AM EST

universal health care and yet he and his supporters keep using this term anyway to fool the voters, I find this repulsive, since UHC is something that I need desperately...

: exactly (none / 0) (#25)
by Josey on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:03:13 PM EST

Obama deceptively leads followers to believe he supports universal health care.
And now the pro-Obama 527 ad will project the same LIE Obama has promoted in his own ads.
Very confusing. Obama's positions are contradictory.
Obama defends his health care plan that omits 15M and uses "Harry and Louise" ads against UHC.
Then claims he supports UHC.

[ Parent ]

I notice (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by tek on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:41:29 AM EST

the redundant headline appeared in Yahoo! News today: Obama Closing on Clinton in Ohio! I hate say, but this is beginning to remind me of the last two elections where Dubya was the Teflon candidate. The MSM MUST run stories claiming that the candidates are tied so that when the results come out, it won't look suspicious. I'm sorry, but BO gaining 20-30 points in a couple of days before every primary looks toooo suspicious to me.

Why all the sudden outrage (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:01:40 PM EST

from the Obama campaign if they are winning? Hmmm.

: Yes (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by BDB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:57:35 PM EST

One does wonder if Obama is rolling to victory why they feel the need to denigrate Clinton every day. Is it that it's simply habit now or are they more worried than I've been led to believe they should be?
They should relax, they have the Obama rules to protect them. The Clinton "major" foreign policy speech apparently wasn't covered by any of the news networks (according to Ambinder).

[ Parent ]

Thanks BTD! (1.00 / 0) (#16)
by Independence33 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:54:02 PM EST

Just wanted to reiterate that I appreciate you commenting on the "dressing" issue. I am just really disillusioned right now with the Clinton campaign and maybe I am venting to much but it is just so disappointing to see someone you have stuck up for and respected for so long start acting this way.

Obama bashed Edwards (none / 0) (#3)
by Josey on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:46:18 AM EST

for a 527 Union ad in Iowa supporting Edwards - nothing negative about other candidates.
This was when a 527 PAC in California had raised $500K for Obama TV ads.
Obama is a hypocrite!

Conspiracy around every corner (none / 0) (#4)
by 1jane on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:50:38 AM EST

Big Tent have you reported on the new anti-Obama 527 that is supporting Clinton? Have you reported on union supporters for Clinton?

Obama coming from behind in poll after poll is no secret. The Obama groups are self organized with paid staff coming in the week or two before each election.

In my neck of the woods we will not vote until May. In my rural county there are already over 100 Obama supporters who have been meeting weekly, heck they even marched in last summers 4th of July parade. No sign of Clinton anywhere...yet. The progressive grassroots campaign, fueled by small donors is kick-in-the-pants entertainment when compared to top down big donar campaigning.

: Yes I have (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:03:02 PM EST

Look it up.

[ Parent ]
: but she does not lay claim to some (none / 0) (#26)
by nycvoter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:07:17 PM EST

holier than thou position on this. She did not attack another candidate for it less than 8 weeks ago. that's the point

[ Parent ]

Full Public Financing of Campaigns (none / 0) (#5)
by kenoshaMarge on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:51:45 AM EST

is the only way that we will ever have half way decent government.

I remain too much of a cynic after watching politics for 40+ years not to believe that some politicians will find a way to play any system. Crooks always do. And from my perspective, we're got a bunch of crooks in Washington D.C. on both sides of the aisle who are so used to our corrupt system they don't even know where they parked their integrity anymore. Somewhere behind "business as usual" would be my guess.

This issue goes back to (none / 0) (#6)
by mg7505 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:54:18 AM EST

the fact that Obama is for Obama, not for the people, the process or progress (for once, Bill Kristol speaks truth to power). The grassroots can march until their shoes wear through, but that doesn't mean they're marching for the right candidate. Hillary supporters don't meet and march to support Hillary -- they meet and march to work on issues that will help people in this country. That's why there's "no sign of Hillary"... except the millions of votes she is getting.

Excuse me (none / 0) (#8)
by 1jane on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:58:29 AM EST

The meetings in my county are all issues related..nice try.The research into positions goes on daily to debunk all the manure being thrown around. By the way, Kristol is as right wing as a columnist can get..I trust his fair and balanced reporting about as far as that bridge he's trying to sell.

[ Parent ]

: I don't think you understand the point (none / 0) (#29)
by tree on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:39:52 PM EST

"The research into positions goes on daily to debunk all the manure being thrown around."
This sounds like you aren't working on the issues. It sounds like you are working on selling Obama. If you are working on the issues that matter to you, you don't just do it by saying "Vote for my guy." (Or by doing "research into positions".) You organize around the issues, not the man (or woman).
Good for you that you feel part of a group that is helping to elect a candidate you like. But if you don't also fight for the issues you believe in, you aren't really part of the solution.(And this comment isn't directed personally at you alone.) And that means more than just spouting talking points and mindlessly agreeing with everything your candidate says or does.

[ Parent ]

What about the Clinton rules? (none / 0) (#7)
by Independence33 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:55:41 AM EST

How many rules and promises does her campaign have to break before you wake up. Harold Ickes,one of her senior advisors voted to strip Fla. and Mich. from ther delegates for breaking the rules. All the campaigns agreed. Now Clinton wants that rule thrown out and Ickes is the main spokesperson for it. All the while, she has taken more money from lobbyist and special interest than anyone, and turns around to say that she will fight them and their influence in the campaign. Campaign finance is a tricky thing but for her to attempt to take the high ground from a campaign that is breaking records for small, real people donations at the grass roots level is a joke. The very fact that this group of 100 people trying to accumulate 100,000 worth of donations to help her is compared to the UFCW is the joke here. A real union with real people it represents is not the same as a bunch of fat cat influence peddlers hitting up there own wealthy pocketbooks. I agree that in Iowa, Obama made the mistake of stating that Edwards was recieving outside money and he was getting just supporters money, but that was the case in Iowa. Obama should have realized that if he were to be succesful in Iowa,that all the unions and 527s could look to help him if Edwards dropped out. This was a mistake but it seems to be made in good faith. This nonsense from the Clinton campaign is not. The last argument she should ever be getting into with Obama or Edwards should be about money. Come on BTD, where is the "dressing story" at? Are you telling us that you have no opinion on the matter of the Clinton campaigns tactics on this?

Why can't you say the word? (none / 0) (#19)
by Josey on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:46:51 PM EST

Obama didn't "make a mistake" in Iowa re Edwards.
Obama LIED about Edwards and smeared him in Iowa.

Most candidates apprise the news media when ads are going up. Obama didn't - until 10 days after a radio ad had run - bashing Edwards, trial lawyers, unions, etc.

Obama lies.

[ Parent ]

Please back up your claim (none / 0) (#20)
by AF on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:15:22 PM EST

When did Obama lie about Edwards? Note that a lie is not a statement that you perceive as unfair, hypocritical, or misleading. It is a false statement of fact.

[ Parent ]

how about this one (5.00 / 0) (#21)
by Kathy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:24:42 PM EST

Obama lied about Clinton saying NAFTA was a "boon." The first mailer could be excused, but to repeat it again in the second mailer, after he was told that it was not a direct quote, is LYING.

[ Parent ]

Please try again (none / 0) (#22)
by AF on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:39:58 PM EST

The mailer accurately quotes Newsday. It does create the impression that the quote is from Hillary, which is misleading in a narrow sense (but still not a lie). But in a substantive sense, it is not misleading as Hillary has characterized NAFTA as "on balance good for New York and good for America."

[ Parent ]

hypocritical (none / 0) (#30)
by tree on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:50:26 PM EST

And "Obama said the United States benefits enormously from exports under the WTO and NAFTA."
according to the Decatur Herald. So he's trying to smear Clinton for saying the very same kind of thing he did. He didn't out and out lie. He just tried to create a false impression about a non-existent difference between his stand and hers.

[ Parent ]

That's a reporter's paraphrase (none / 0) (#31)
by AF on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:10:02 PM EST

not a quote. I could have sworn I heard someone complaining about quoting paraphrases as quotes fairly recently . . . .

The differences between their current positions may be non-existent, but the differences between their records is not. Bill Clinton signed NAFTA. Hillary Clinton is running on the record of the Clinton administration. That in itself makes the NAFTA attack more than fair.

[ Parent ]

: Who ever said it was a direct quote from Obama? (none / 0) (#32)
by tree on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:22:18 AM EST

If you look at the way I quoted, I made it OBVIOUS to any intelligent reader that it was a quote from the Decatur Herald describing what Obama's position was, versus his opponent Keyes's position. What exact words he used, who knows. (Heck, he could have even used the word "boon" for all we know.) The only one who's (erroneously) continued to claim a direct quote is Obama's campaign in their misleading mailer on Clinton..
Hillary Clinton is running on her own record, and that record is nearly identical to Obama's on NAFTA (i.e., it has its benefits but needs to be overhauled.) And she personally argued against it during the Clinton Administration. Obama's campaign is being misleading and hypocritical.

[ Parent ]

Obama LIED about Edwards (none / 0) (#23)
by Josey on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:55:41 PM EST

claiming "outside groups" were airing a 527 pro-Edwards ad.
The "outside group" was an Iowa union.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/25/92711/2540

[ Parent ]

English, people, speak English! (none / 0) (#24)
by AF on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:00:53 PM EST

Calling a union 527 an outside group is not a lie. Neither is "flip-flopping" on an issue.

A "lie" is not any statement that you consider unfair, hypocritical, or otherwise objectionable. A lie is a false statement of fact (for examplle, stating that someone lied when they did not).

The same definition applies when the word is capitalized.

[ Parent ]

it's more his holier than thou position that (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by nycvoter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:11:14 PM EST

bothers me. Isn't he supposed to be better than all of us, isn't he supposed to transcend misleading political tactics that don't honestly frame the other candidates positions? So, on the funding he's a hypocrit, for the pledge to McCain, (he was silly to make but benefitted from politically agains Hillary) he's flip flopping and on a better kind of politics he's a liar.

[ Parent ]

: Sigh (none / 0) (#28)
by AF on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:14:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Haha (none / 0) (#11)
by Claw on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:06:14 PM EST

BTD,
you forgot that they're also gigantic egomaniacs...this is why I think the whole "Obama is for Obama but Hillary is for US," thing rings so false.
Mg7505,
citing Bill Kristol, who occupies a completely alternate universe, makes me more, not less suspicious of your point. And the idea that he speaks truth to power should make any self respecting liberal laugh 'till they can't breath.
In the words of Jon Stewart, "Oh Bill Kristol, are you EVER right?"

I agree (none / 0) (#12)
by ajs214 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:06:40 PM EST

With the spirit of the post. However, the comment about public financing doesn't solve the problem. If a candidate were to be publicly financed it would not prohibit outside forces from usurping the intent of a publicly financed campaign.

Slightly off topic, if you accept the premise that Obama's plan makes insurance affordable for everyone, doesnt that make it universal without a mandate? We have universal sufferage in this country, yet not everyone votes.

: They don't vote in ERs (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:13:00 PM EST

and then bill us thousands of dollars through our health insurance payments, because they don't have coverage. Find a better parallel.

[ Parent ]

Hey Ralph B. There is a general election. Duh (none / 0) (#13)
by Independence33 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:09:07 PM EST

All this nonsense that has been coming from the Clinton campaign must be addressed swiftly. I dont get the argument for sitting on a lead because this is what the Clintons did for more than a year and look what it has got them. Ask Rudy as well. This election is still very much up for grabs and if he just lets this stuff linger than it can hurt. Dont forget that there is a general election too, and if Obama just leaves this stuff out there than we all know that this will be the number one Republican attack against him. They are already embracing the hoax e-mails and attacking him for not being patriotic enough.

: Pure BS (none / 0) (#18)
by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:13:12 PM EST

If you think for one second that complaining about 527s will stop the republicans from using them, I've got some beach from property in Arizona you'd love.
This is pure primary fodder. Arguments like this may work in a democratic primary but in the general election it will not help. Scary ads are scary ads.

[ Parent ]

nitpick alert (none / 0) (#14)
by Klio on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:11:37 PM EST

"perversing" s/b "perverting"

speaking in all irony, of course :-)

cheers,