Davis v. FEC. The court rules on campaign finance laws

[ProfJohn]

I present for your enjoyment two articles taking two different sides of this story.

First the Wall Street Journal
link

It has been a splendid week for the Bill of Rights at the Supreme Court. In addition to their landmark gun rights ruling, the same five Justices took another whack at Congress's attempts to limit political speech via campaign-finance limits. John McCain, call your office.

In Davis v. FEC, a 5-4 majority overturned a portion of the 2002 McCain-Feingold law that exempted the political opponents of rich candidates from the usual fund-raising limits in order to "level the playing field." Known as the Millionaire's Amendment, the law saddled wealthy, self-financing candidates with burdens designed to help their opponents. Millionaires had to report expenditures within 24 hours, while their opponents were allowed greater coordination with political parties and could raise three times the usual $2,300 limit on individual contributions. Naturally, this idea came from Congressional incumbents who hate wealthy challengers.

The case was brought by Jack Davis, a New York Democrat who twice ran a self-financed campaign to oust Congressman Tom Reynolds. Mr. Davis's spending triggered the millionaire limits, despite Mr. Reynolds's well-stocked campaign bank accounts. Though he lost both times, Mr. Davis was fined by the Federal Election Commission for failing to report expenditures in the 24-hour window.

Reformers justify the special rules for millionaires by crying fairness ? an argument that Justice Samuel Alito dispatched in his majority opinion. "The argument that a candidate's speech may be restricted in order to 'level electoral opportunities' has ominous implications," he wrote, and is "antithetical to the First Amendment."

If Congress can massage the rules to level the playing field for candidates of differing personal means, what's to stop Congress from doing it for other reasons and in other ways? Some candidates are celebrities, others have famous political names, and still others may be adored by the local newspaper. Should Congress level the field for their opponents too? No prior Court opinions, Justice Alito added, support the notion that reducing the "natural advantage" of rich candidates is a legitimate government objective.

The ruling puts in jeopardy similar attempts to favor some candidates over others in such states as Arizona and Maine. More important, it signals that five Justices on the current Court view campaign-finance limits with increasing skepticism.

Sooner or later, they are likely to run up against the Court's own original sin in this area, Buckley v. Valeo, which in 1976 first allowed fund-raising limits. They should also revisit McConnell v. FEC, which in 2003 upheld most of McCain-Feingold. The arrival of Justice Alito has clearly changed the Court's approach to these cases, and there may now be a majority to reassert the Court's obligation to protect political speech in a democracy.

As for Mr. McCain, we assume his campaign-finance travails this year have been educational. He became a media fave by embracing fund-raising limits as a cause, only to watch as the media now drops him for Barack Obama, who refuses to adhere to the same limits and so will vastly outspend the Republican in the fall. Such are the rewards of pursuing liberal admiration.

Now the New York Times
link

Millionaires are already wildly overrepresented in Congress. The Supreme Court gave a big boost to rich candidates this week by striking down the ?millionaire?s amendment,? which was designed to help level the playing field for candidates running against wealthy opponents.

Americans say time and again that they want fair and clean elections. Federal campaign-finance law limits the amount that candidates can accept from contributors. But candidates are free to spend as much of their own money as they want, which is why being rich can be such a great political advantage.

Congress passed the amendment in 2002 as part of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law. It says that when candidates spend more than a certain amount of their own money on a campaign, their opponent can accept contributions of three times the usual limit ? $6,900 from individual donors, instead of $2,300. The opponent can continue to accept amounts at that level until they can match their self-financed rival?s spending.

Jack Davis, who spent more than $2 million of his own money on his losing race for Congress in 2006, challenged the amendment. By a 5-to-4 vote, the court ruled that the millionaire?s amendment violates the First Amendment. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, said that the amendment infringed on Mr. Davis?s speech rights, because when he spent his own money ? which the court considers to be speech ? he was being penalized by having his opponent?s contribution limits raised.

This logic is flawed. The amendment does not infringe on anyone?s right to speak. Mr. Davis could say, or spend, as much as he wanted. It merely allowed his opponent to raise more money to finance his own campaign ? and campaign speech. That clearly advances the goals of the First Amendment and ensures that more Americans, wealthy or not, can participate in the political process.

The ruling is conservative judicial activism of the first order. Congress passed the millionaire?s amendment to ?level electoral opportunities for candidates of different personal wealth.? But the court baldly asserted that this is not ?a legitimate government objective.?

Most of the McCain-Feingold law remains in effect. But the decision suggests that the court may now go on to strike down more central rules, such as the limits on campaign spending by corporations and unions.

The majority showed disproportionate concern for the rights of the wealthy, disregard for the goal of making elections fairer and a lack of respect for Congress. That is a dangerous combination for a court charged with maintaining the health of America?s democracy.

It is time for congress to throw out the old laws and start all over.

The internet has changed the way campaigns are run and the laws should reflect this.

Also, the 2004 and 2008 primaries both showed that the guy/gal with the most money doesn't always win. Dean had a ton of money and fell apart. McCain was broke and won. Hillary had all the money at the start and lost, and then Obama out spent her big time in several states and Hillary still won those states. And Ron Paul raised a ton of money and could never get above 5% when the votes actually counted. Money may help you compete, but it does not not help you win.

 

[ScottyB]

There should be no financial limits, candidate or doners. It goes against the First Amendment, which is first for a reason.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ScottyB
There should be no financial limits, candidate or doners. It goes against the First Amendment, which is first for a reason.

Then why shouldn't I be able to use my money to buy a politician's vote?

Since it's free speech to give him a reason to vote one way, and since money is free speech according to you, why can't I say "your vote on this is worth $10,000 to me".

That's just free speech.

Why the indirection of saying "I'm thinking of giving your campaign $10,000; what's your position on this issue, which I think you shoudl vote this way on"?

 

[Craig234]

BTW, needless to say, as on *every* 5-4 decision these four radicals have been together on and pulled Kennedy over, I disagree with their decision and side with the other 4.

I place the values of democracy, the functioning of the people having the power in our society, above the right of money to dominate.

That's the theory on which we base laws such as the one prohibiting the wealthy from simply offering the public cash for their vote.

Accomplishing the same problem by making it slightly less blatant doesn't mean it's not a problem, it is.

 

[sandorski]

Remove limits, get Corruption.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: ScottyB
There should be no financial limits, candidate or doners. It goes against the First Amendment, which is first for a reason.

Absolutely.
Any INDIVIDUAL should be able to give all they want. Corporations should not be allowed to contribute ONE penny. And corporations should not be allowed to spend one penny on lobbyists either.
Corporations have NO right to free speech.
And individuals who donate should have to be listed by name and amount and occupation. So we can see who is giving what. And decide if they are buying political favors.

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ScottyB
There should be no financial limits, candidate or doners. It goes against the First Amendment, which is first for a reason.

Then why shouldn't I be able to use my money to buy a politician's vote?

Since it's free speech to give him a reason to vote one way, and since money is free speech according to you, why can't I say "your vote on this is worth $10,000 to me".

That's just free speech.

Why the indirection of saying "I'm thinking of giving your campaign $10,000; what's your position on this issue, which I think you shoudl vote this way on"?

Umm no, thats bribery and if you can't tell the difference then you are retarded......

Offering money to a politician to vote a certain way is bribery.

Giving money to a politician because they have voted or will vote a certain way is political fund raising.

If you are so tired of money buying elections then please tell BHO to un-lie and return to his promise to use only 85 million in public funds.

Otherwise, wake up to the fact that your boy that stands for hope and change has already been bought and sold 100 times over before he has had a chance to give anyone any hope or change.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ScottyB
There should be no financial limits, candidate or doners. It goes against the First Amendment, which is first for a reason.

Then why shouldn't I be able to use my money to buy a politician's vote?

Since it's free speech to give him a reason to vote one way, and since money is free speech according to you, why can't I say "your vote on this is worth $10,000 to me".

That's just free speech.

Why the indirection of saying "I'm thinking of giving your campaign $10,000; what's your position on this issue, which I think you shoudl vote this way on"?

Umm no, thats bribery and if you can't tell the difference then you are retarded......

Offering money to a politician to vote a certain way is bribery.

Giving money to a politician because they have voted or will vote a certain way is political fund raising.

My argument went right over your head.

Your response shows you are unlikely to understand it.

But we can try one more time.

Do I have thr right to use free speech to try to get my representative to vet a certain way?
(Yes).

Is money free speech, not something different than free speech that can be regulated, but free speech protected by the constitution without limits?
(YOu say yes).

Do I have the right to use my free/speech/money to try to get my Congressman to vote the way I want?
(Logic says yes under your rules).

What's the difference between my saying "Here's a good argument for voting this way" (free speech) and "Here's $1,000 to vote that way (free speech)?

Yes, it's "bribery", but that's a word under our current rules, not an argument you can use to object. You're going to have to defend the logic of your position, not just say 'bribery'.

It's only bribery under the current rules, not when money is constitutionally protected free speech without liimits. Under your rules there's no such thing as 'bribery', it's obsolete.

Your illogical response is like saying 'let's get rid of all government limits on what people can eat', and when someone says but now they'll serve dog, you say 'no, that's illegal'.

If you are so tired of money buying elections then please tell BHO to un-lie and return to his promise to use only 85 million in public funds.

I'll tell you to un-lie and not say Barack said something he didn't say.

I'm not tired of 'money buying elections', I'm tired of the few very wealthy interests setting up the system to let them dominate it usually with big donations. Grass-roots donations from the public are ntot the same corrupting money. Since Barack is breaking new ground at getting grass roots donations, and he and the Democrat Party this election have stopped accepting all donations from PACs, it's not the same issue anyway.

Otherwise, wake up to the fact that your boy that stands for hope and change has already been bought and sold 100 times over before he has had a chance to give anyone any hope or change.

Show me the money. Show me Barack's voting patterns based on big donor money the way I can show you corrupt Medicare drug bills and Terry Schiavo pandering to donors.

The way I can show you unprecedented appointments of hundreds of industry representatives to government positions for industries who donated to the GOP.

You can't. The 'corruption' you can show me is only Barack supporting his broad political base - not 'corrupt' cotes for narrow donors.

And by the way, 'your boy' is a disrespectful way to refer to the first mixed-race major party nominee for president, considering the racist history of blacks and the word 'boy'.

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: Craig234


Show me the money. Show me Barack's voting patterns based on big donor money the way I can show you corrupt Medicare drug bills and Terry Schiavo pandering to donors.

Here I'll connet the dots for you.

TONY REZKO... OBAMA'S VOTE... PUBLIC HOUSING...... MONEY TO OBAMA.

Done.

And aside from that here is his donors, you telling me they aren't buying something?

Goldman Sachs $571,330
University of California $466,410
UBS AG $364,556
JPMorgan Chase & Co $364,157
Citigroup Inc $360,304
National Amusements Inc $322,050
Lehman Brothers $319,147
Harvard University $315,624
Google Inc $309,714
Sidley Austin LLP $294,445
Skadden, Arps et al $278,163
Time Warner $264,977
Morgan Stanley $260,376
Jones Day $249,375
Exelon Corp $236,211
Latham & Watkins $220,865
Wilmerhale Llp $220,230
University of Chicago $219,707
Microsoft Corp $206,942
General Electric $206,579

And by the way, 'your boy' is a disrespectful way to refer to the first mixed-race major party nominee for president, considering the racist history of blacks and the word 'boy'.

Tsk tsk, losing a debate and jumping to the race card is no way to live.

You need to get out of Jesse Jackson's playbook and start thinking for yourself.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: Craig234
Show me the money. Show me Barack's voting patterns based on big donor money the way I can show you corrupt Medicare drug bills and Terry Schiavo pandering to donors.

Here I'll connet the dots for you.

TONY REZKO... OBAMA'S VOTE... PUBLIC HOUSING...... MONEY TO OBAMA.

Done.

Not done. Not close to done.

First, you would want to establish a *pattern of behavior* - if you can. You can't. Notice how I listed a few of the many examples for Bush? Including hundreds of unprecedented appointments that are quite clearly the sort of corrupt use of money that we're talking about? As opposed to your fact-free one-liner with nothing but insinuation.

Here is a Wikipedia link on the topic of Obama and Rezko. Nowehere in it is there anything beginning to approach the type of corruption we're talking about. So, you failed to prove your claim, badly.

And aside from that here is his donors, you telling me they aren't buying something?

Goldman Sachs $571,330
University of California $466,410
UBS AG $364,556
JPMorgan Chase & Co $364,157
Citigroup Inc $360,304
National Amusements Inc $322,050
Lehman Brothers $319,147
Harvard University $315,624
Google Inc $309,714
Sidley Austin LLP $294,445
Skadden, Arps et al $278,163
Time Warner $264,977
Morgan Stanley $260,376
Jones Day $249,375
Exelon Corp $236,211
Latham & Watkins $220,865
Wilmerhale Llp $220,230
University of Chicago $219,707
Microsoft Corp $206,942
General Electric $206,579

You need to prove they are 'buying something'. I can show you conections between the GOP's #1 donoro industry and the Bush administration and Republican Congress having as one of their two top agenda items the Medicare drug bill gevaway that was a blatant payoff to their donors, for one example.

The fact is that Obama's donations are far more grass-roots, and that he's cut off a lot of the 'big money' donations.

And by the way, 'your boy' is a disrespectful way to refer to the first mixed-race major party nominee for president, considering the racist history of blacks and the word 'boy'.

Tsk tsk, losing a debate and jumping to the race card is no way to live.

You need to get out of Jesse Jackson's playbook and start thinking for yourself.

You're the one who can't think for himself, with your thoughtless, knee-jerk reaction to ANY racist comments, however legitimately racist, with your automated "wah race card Jesse Jackson" speech. The fact that you can't see 'boy' for Obama is inappropriate, and can't do better than the parroted 'race card Jesse Jackson' crap, says a lot about you. You're projecting, i.e., attributing to others your own weakness.

 

[Fern]

I don't know what to do about campaign financing; it confounds me. I think the present system stinks to high heaven, but just don't know what to do.

Sometimes I think it OK for a person to spend as much of their money as they want to get elected. Other times I feel like "sh!t, why can that rich guy give his campaign unlimted amounts, but I'm limited to $2,300?".

He has no limits in expressing his "freedom of speech" for his political issues (which is what his campaign is, running around expressing his view on politics; so why do I have a limit?

I really don't see how the SCOTUS can rule that limiting him is limiting his free speech, but limiting the rest of is not?

If I understand correctly, corporations etc cannot donate. But the way they CAN bundle donations form their owners/employees amounts to same thing IMO. Look at the list in the above post,; it looks just like the companies themselves donated. Do I think they are doing it for some benefit? Damn right I do. Do I think the politicains view that way ( the same as if the company itself gave)? Damn right I do. It's a shame. I think that type bundling needs to be stopped. It's nothing but a slick way to skirt the system.

Maybe the US Treasury Dept should be the only place to forward donations to candidates; and the only place the candidates can use as a source of funds for campaign expenditures. The candidates can get a list of who donated - just the citizen's name and not their company. The Tres Dept can vet each contribution and make sure that they are proper & legal. That would stop some of the shens we hear about now when campaigns police themselves.

And maybe everybody should be subjected to the same $2,300 limit, whether it's your own campaign or not.

In some ways I see allowing some people to donate more than others, because they have the financial means, as making their freedom of speech greater than those with less means. That strikes me as unfair. It's sort of like they're getting more *votes* than others in a democracy where we all have the same *voice* of one vote. Having a financial advantage such that you can sway others votes to that of your own is similar to getting extra votes. Not fair.

Edit: I'd like to add that it think it unfair to some that if they're supporting the veiws of a millionaire they're *voice* is limited to $2,300. But if your supporting the other view, you get 3 times that amount. How the hell is that fair to individual political supporter when you veiw it from their perspective?

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern

In some ways I see allowing some people to donate more than others, because they have the financial means, as making their freedom of speech greater than those with less means. That strikes me as unfair. It's sort of like they're getting more *votes* than others in a democracy where we all have the same *voice* of one vote. Having a financial advantage such that you can sway others votes to that of your own is similar to getting extra votes. Not fair.

Edit: I'd like to add that it think it unfair to some that if they're supporting the veiws of a millionaire they're *voice* is limited to $2,300. But if your supporting the other view, you get 3 times that amount. How the hell is that fair to individual political supporter when you veiw it from their perspective?

Fern

I think you have gone a long way on the issue to this point (I recognize the same road), and that the next step is to go from recognizing it's unfair to noticng that the small class with the huge money has *set up the system* to thwart the 'one person one vote' intent of democracy to distribute power, to keep it concentrated with them by *designing the system to rely on their big donations*, giving them far more control than is obvious.

Hide it behind a few populist phrases about 'big government limiting free speech' and enjoy.

As long as the candidates have to make compromises taking the money to get to the 'nominee' stage, the special interests have a no-lose situation whoever is elected.

This was especially clear in the special California Gubernatorial election, with 134 cadndiates, but only one with a chance, Arnold Schwarzeneggar.

You could see that the 134 list was filled with some professors, attorneys, Arianna Huffington, even legitimate politicians, many people who might have had fine qualifications, but no way to 'stand out' to the electorate. You could see there was just no way for those people to get elected out of the list over Arnold, short of him shooting someone (attractive) on camera, and even that might not be a problem if he had a good catch phrase when he did it.

It's not a black and white situation; not every race is won by 'big money', but the fact that not all are can actually serve to help hide the fact that enough are for pretty good control.

Who cares that Pete Stark and Barbara Lee vote 'no' as long as most vote yes, it's reassuring to the public that the system is 'fair' for there to be a few irrelevant exceptions.

The behavior of presidents Reagan to now who were Republicans is clear, but even Clinton, the supposed 'outsider', democrat, 'liberal', was pushing corporatist free trade, the Telecommunications Act, and other such measures that were for big money, not the public interest. IMO, besides the unfortunately ineffective but right agenda Carter, you have to go back to the 60's to find Democrats who could stand up to these interests, and even they had a hard time with it - LBJ pressured to go into Vietnam, Kennedy having to war publically at times with business (resulting his his saying his father had told him all businessmen were sons of bitches, but he hadn't believed it until he was president - a statement that would hardly be politically correct today). And that presidency rested largely on his father's wealth and a private plan in the campaign, and LBJ was elected on his coattails.

They did a poll of newly elected California legislators, and the number one issue the legislators mentioned was how the need to raise huge campaign funds took nearly all their time, keeping them from the legislative work, and they hated it. What we have is a systemic problem, caused by the desire of one group (the very wealthy) to thwart the system of democracy. They're winning.

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: Craig234
First, you would want to establish a *pattern of behavior*

Why do I need to show a pattern of behavior again? Is it just to prove to you that your savior's shit actually stinks?

That isn't possible, you drank the Kool-Aid and came back for seconds already.

The sheer fact that you think you need to show a "pattern of behavior" for bad deeds shows your blinders well enough.

Here's a clue, you don't have to have a pattern of behavior........

You don't have to show a pattern of behavior for murder, rape, theft, fraud, or any other crime.

If a politician goes on trial for bribery they don't have to show a pattern of behavior, they have to show that his ass got bought period.

The fact is that Obama's donations are far more grass-roots, and that he's cut off a lot of the 'big money' donations.

The fact that you even believe this makes this conversation pointless.

Obama has more money than God at this point. That's tough to do on Uncle John and Little Billy's nickels and dimes.

You're the one who can't think for himself, with your thoughtless, knee-jerk reaction to ANY racist comments, however legitimately racist, with your automated "wah race card Jesse Jackson" speech. The fact that you can't see 'boy' for Obama is inappropriate, and can't do better than the parroted 'race card Jesse Jackson' crap, says a lot about you. You're projecting, i.e., attributing to others your own weakness.

I wasn't calling Obama a boy, I was saying he is "YOUR BOY" meaning your horse in this race.

Ahh shit, now you are going to tell me I'm calling him a sub human animal too right?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: Craig234
First, you would want to establish a *pattern of behavior*

Why do I need to show a pattern of behavior again? Is it just to prove to you that your savior's shit actually stinks?

That isn't possible, you drank the Kool-Aid and came back for seconds already.

The sheer fact that you think you need to show a "pattern of behavior" for bad deeds shows your blinders well enough.

Here's a clue, you don't have to have a pattern of behavior........

You don't have to show a pattern of behavior for murder, rape, theft, fraud, or any other crime.

If a politician goes on trial for bribery they don't have to show a pattern of behavior, they have to show that his ass got bought period.

The fallacy in THIS bit of commentary is that the topic is whether Obama has been corrupted by 'big money', and that's different than rape and murder.

Show me one murderer, and I'll say he's a murderer; one rape, and he's a rapist. Show me that he did one thing a donor liked, and you have not proven he's 'corrupt'.

Now, if you can make the case especially strong, that he did something against the public interest for the big money donation, then one example would show he was corrupt, though not the sort of broad corruption I was discussing such as you see with the Bush administrration and the GOP in many cases today. But you did not show anything wrong at all, just threw some mud lacking any substance.

The fact is that Obama's donations are far more grass-roots, and that he's cut off a lot of the 'big money' donations.

The fact that you even believe this makes this conversation pointless.

Obama has more money than God at this point. That's tough to do on Uncle John and Little Billy's nickels and dimes.

The conversation is pointless because you haven't shown one bit of independant thinking and rationality yet, just claims that are baseless.

The fact is that he's raised grass roots donations at record levels, and so yes, he has raised huge sums from not little Billy's coins, but from Billy's parents' $20 and $40.

Your sputtering that you disagree is not evidence.

You're the one who can't think for himself, with your thoughtless, knee-jerk reaction to ANY racist comments, however legitimately racist, with your automated "wah race card Jesse Jackson" speech. The fact that you can't see 'boy' for Obama is inappropriate, and can't do better than the parroted 'race card Jesse Jackson' crap, says a lot about you. You're projecting, i.e., attributing to others your own weakness.

I wasn't calling Obama a boy, I was saying he is "YOUR BOY" meaning your horse in this race.

Ahh shit, now you are going to tell me I'm calling him a sub human animal too right?

And I never said you intended to be racist. I said you should choose your words better given the history of the word 'boy' and blacks. And no, 'horse race' is a common phrase.

Your attempt to get around the poor choice of words on your part by claiming that my object was some wild Jesse Jackson unreasonable complaint, is smacked down.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Deudalus
-snip-

The fact is that Obama's donations are far more grass-roots, and that he's cut off a lot of the 'big money' donations.

The fact that you even believe this makes this conversation pointless.

Lately, I've been hearing his internet/grass roots support is not all it's been made up to be. So, I'm starting to question it, and would like to some critical/serious reporting on it (not the fawning stuff we seen too much of).

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern
Lately, I've been hearing his internet/grass roots support is not all it's been made up to be. So, I'm starting to question it, and would like to some critical/serious reporting on it (not the fawning stuff we seen too much of).

Fern

Where did you see that? I'm interested in the truth of the matter one way or the other.

I'm more concerned that Obama doing well at it might undermine the pressure to fix it.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Fern
Lately, I've been hearing his internet/grass roots support is not all it's been made up to be. So, I'm starting to question it, and would like to some critical/serious reporting on it (not the fawning stuff we seen too much of).

Fern

Where did you see that? I'm interested in the truth of the matter one way or the other.

I'm more concerned that Obama doing well at it might undermine the pressure to fix it.

I heard it on one of the editoral news shows.

Googling has been no help (too many articles about forgoing FEC money). I do notice *troubling* contradictions though. Obama's people say 90% of his contributions are $100 or less donors. Other sources say about 47% for $200 or less.

By the way I do math, the $200 should also include the $100 amounts and therefor be an even higher percentage. Not the other way around.

I'm not willing to call complete shens on his rep of being supported almost exclusively by grassroots, but I am getting curious.

IOW, I don't really have anything solid to link you up with.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern

I heard it on one of the editoral news shows.

Googling has been no help (too many articles about forgoing FEC money). I do notice *troubling* contradictions though. Obama's people say 90% of his contributions are $100 or less donors. Other sources say about 47% for $200 or less.

By the way I do math, the $200 should also include the $100 amounts and therefor be an even higher percentage. Not the other way around.

I'm not willing to call complete shens on his rep of being supported almost exclusively by grassroots, but I am getting curious.

IOW, I don't really have anything solid to link you up with.

Fern

Keep us posted if you find any facts to the contrary. There will likely be some *flase* attacks made by someone about his fundraising to keep an eye out for too.

By the way, I'm looking less at whether 'nearly all' his fundraising is from grass roots, than at how reportedly much more than others get is from grass roots.

Either way, though, the accuracy of his campaign's claims is fair game.

 

[Deudalus]

Look Craig, I'll make it very simple for you.

Obama through his initiatives and votes while serving in the state of Illinois made Tony Rezko a whole lot of money. Tony Rezko was also a major Barack Obama contributor including giving Obama a very good deal on a piece of property.

Rezko was recently convicted of fraud and bribery charges and was indicted amongst other things for demanding kick backs from businesses that wanted to do business in the state of Illinois.

Ties to Barack Obama

In 1990, after Obama was elected president of the Harvard Law Review, Rezmar Corp. offered him a job, which Obama turned down. Obama did end up taking a job with law firm Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland,[25] which primarily worked civil rights cases, but also represented Rezmar and helped the company get more than $43 million in government funding and whose former senior partner, Allison S. Davis, later went into business with Rezko and, in 2003, was appointed to Illinois State Board of Investment by Governor Blagojevich at Rezko's request.[7][26] On July 31, 1995 the first ever political contributions to Obama were $300 from a lawyer, a $5,000 loan from a car dealer, and $2,000 from two food companies owned by Rezko.[27] Starting in 2003, Rezko was one of the people on Obama's U.S. Senate campaign finance committee, which raised more than $14 million.[7] Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama, which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with seed money for his U.S. Senate race.[1] Obama has since identified over $250,000 in campaign contributions to various Obama campaigns as coming from Rezko or close associates, and has in consequence donated almost two thirds of that amount to charity.[28][29]

Also, in 2005 Obama purchased a new home in the Kenwood District of Chicago for $1.65 million ($300,000 below the original price) on the same day that Rezko's wife, Rita Rezko, purchased the adjoining empty lot from the same sellers for the full asking price.[30] Obama acknowledged bringing his interest in the property to Rezko's attention,[31] but denied any coordination of offers. According to Obama, while the properties had originally been a single property, the previous owners decided to sell the land as two separate lots, but made it a condition of the sales that they be closed on the same date. Obama also said that the properties had been on the market for months, that his offer was the best of two bids, and that Ms. Rezko's bid was matched by another offer, also of $625,000, so that she could not have purchased the property for less.[32] Obama's description of the purchase was later confirmed by the previous owner of the house.[33]

After it had been reported in 2006 that Rezko was under federal investigation for influence-peddling, Obama purchased a 10 foot (3.0 m) wide strip of Ms. Rezko's property for $104,500, $60,000 above the assessed value.[30][7] According to Chicago Sun-Times columnist, Mark Brown, "Rezko definitely did Obama a favor by selling him the 10-foot strip of land, making his own parcel less attractive for development."[34] Obama acknowledges that the exchange may have created the appearance of impropriety, and stated "I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it."[32]

On December 28, 2006, Ms. Rezko sold the property to a company owned by her husband's former business attorney. That sale of $575,000, combined with the earlier $104,500 sale to the Obamas, amounted to a net profit of $54,500 over her original purchase, less $14,000 for a fence along the property line and other expenses.[35][36] In October 2007, the new owners put the still vacant land up for sale again, this time for $1.5 million.[37]

In June 2007, the Sun-Times published a story about letters Obama had written in 1997 to city and state officials in support of a low-income senior citizen development project headed by Rezko and partner Allison Davis. The project received more than $14 million in taxpayer funds, including $885,000 in development fees for Rezko and Davis. Of Obama's letters in support of the Cottage View Terrace apartments development, Obama spokesman Bill Burton said, "This wasn't done as a favor for anyone, it was done in the interests of the people in the community who have benefited from the project. I don't know that anyone specifically asked him to write this letter nine years ago. There was a consensus in the community about the positive impact the project would make and Obama supported it because it was going to help people in his district." Rezko's attorney responded that "Mr. Rezko never spoke with, nor sought a letter from, Senator Obama in connection with that project.[38]

In the South Carolina Democratic Party presidential debate on January 21, 2008, Senator Hillary Clinton said that Obama had represented Rezko, who she referred to as a slum landlord.[39] Obama responded that he had never represented Rezko and had done only about five hours work, indirectly, for Rezko's firm.[32] Within days of the debate, a photo of Rezko posing with Bill and Hillary Clinton surfaced. When asked about the photo Hillary Clinton commented "I probably have taken hundreds of thousands of pictures. I wouldn?t know him if he walked in the door."[40]

I believe that is pretty unignoreable.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

I believe that is pretty unignoreable.

I disagree, and it's clear you cannot begin to prove your charge that Obama is 'corrupted by big money' in any way comparable to the Republicans today.

Look, you could link me to organized crime better than you can link Obama to corrupt big money. I once let a bum on the street have a bed and meal for a night, and he told me a story how he had just gotten out of jail for being one of the world's top counterfitters, and while in jail he had befriended a mob boss who protected him, while the boss had a life of relative luxury, bribed guards and italian food.

So, he was trying to connect with the mafia now, and could I give him a ride (he also hinted at stashes of cash to share).

Evaluating this as the crazy talk of a con man, I gave him the ride to see how he would play it out. He said for my own safety to wait a block away while he met the contact. I followed him without his knowing, and saw him go to the public library steps. That's that, I figured. He then did a whistle and a young Italian man in a nice suit walked up to him and the two walked off together. Oh boy.

Remember the recent attack on Obama because decades ago he was at a party where a black panther also came to the party? There are overstated 'connections'.

People in politics are likely to know a lot of people and some of whom have money, some of whom are controversial. There's a need to connect things more than that.

You claim a pattern of votes by Obama *because of these donations*. I saw one vote for a community center that's perfectly consistent with his agenda already.

You haven't proven a thing. Obviously you are so pre-disposed that he's corrupt that his name being in the same phone book with a lobbyist is proof for you.

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Deudalus

I believe that is pretty unignoreable.

I disagree, and it's clear you cannot begin to prove your charge that Obama is 'corrupted by big money' in any way comparable to the Republicans today.

Look, you could link me to organized crime better than you can link Obama to corrupt big money. I once let a bum on the street have a bed and meal for a night, and he told me a story how he had just gotten out of jail for being one of the world's top counterfitters, and while in jail he had befriended a mob boss who protected him, while the boss had a life of relative luxury, bribed guards and italian food.

So, he was trying to connect with the mafia now, and could I give him a ride (he also hinted at stashes of cash to share).

Evaluating this as the crazy talk of a con man, I gave him the ride to see how he would play it out. He said for my own safety to wait a block away while he met the contact. I followed him without his knowing, and saw him go to the public library steps. That's that, I figured. He then did a whistle and a young Italian man in a nice suit walked up to him and the two walked off together. Oh boy.

Remember the recent attack on Obama because decades ago he was at a party where a black panther also came to the party? There are overstated 'connections'.

People in politics are likely to know a lot of people and some of whom have money, some of whom are controversial. There's a need to connect things more than that.

You claim a pattern of votes by Obama *because of these donations*. I saw one vote for a community center that's perfectly consistent with his agenda already.

You haven't proven a thing. Obviously you are so pre-disposed that he's corrupt that his name being in the same phone book with a lobbyist is proof for you.

People once believed the Earth was flat and the Sun revolved around the Earth.

People today believe there were no dinosaurs and the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

People also apparently believe that Obama is some messiah that is untainted by politics and is more squeaky clean than Mother Teresa.

It doesn't matter what you tell a true believer, they can always come up with a way around it. Its no different than the 9-11 truthers, creationist scientists, or any of a number of other zealots.

They, just like you, have their answer already they just have to find enough bullshit to prop up around it to sound slightly non-ridiculous.


I'm not saying he's the dirtiest in the world, I'm not even saying he's dirtier than most.

I'm simply saying like every other politician his shit does indeed stink.


If you can't handle that truth than perhaps you need to relax your man crush.

 

[Zebo]

It's a sick system where people are paying tens of millions for a couple hundred thousand dollar a year job. The rewards they heap upon their initial benefactors are then paid back a thousand times over. Corrupt to the core and something needs to be done about it. Ultimately it comes down to us - why do we frown on intellectuals and learned men and women while gravitating towards tough guys and hipsters?

This system is also why I don't understand the rights fear of Obama, he can't be anything other than establishment to get the war chest he's gotten.