• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Guess who took corporate financing for his state senate campaign fund

If we disqualify every politician who ever took special interest money in his or her career from ever speaking out, or taking action, against taking special interest money, lest they be called hypocrits, then it's a fair bet that none could ever speak out or take action against it.

- wolf
 
After every Obama statement, just mentally add the words "This of course does not apply to me, nor to my party except for those who would consort with Republicans." In fact if you do that for every politician you won't be far wrong.
 
woolfe9999 said:
If we disqualify every politician who ever took special interest money in his or her career from ever speaking out, or taking action, against taking special interest money, lest they be called hypocrits, then it's a fair bet that none could ever speak out or take action against it.

- wolf
Click to expand...

No just those from states that allow corporate contributions to campaign funds. Maybe as a senator he should have worked to change the laws in his own state. Federal campaign funds are still barred from taking money from corporations, despite what Obama implied during the SOTU, but in his own state corporations can directly buy off state senators.
 
dammitgibs said:
No just those from states that allow corporate contributions to campaign funds. Maybe as a senator he should have worked to change the laws in his own state. Federal campaign funds are still barred from taking money from corporations, despite what Obama implied during the SOTU, but in his own state corporations can directly buy off state senators.
Click to expand...

You're right, he didn't completely reform the system in Illinois while in office. He did, however, sponsor and pass the most sweeping lobbyist and campaign finance reform the state has seen in decades.

- wolf
 
woolfe9999 said:
You're right, he didn't completely reform the system in Illinois while in office. He did, however, sponsor and pass the most sweeping lobbyist and campaign finance reform the state has seen in decades.

- wolf
Click to expand...

Banning gifts from lobbyists I think is a great idea, I wish California would do it too, but that doesn't excuse his hypocrisy over the Citizens United ruling.
 
dammitgibs said:
Banning gifts from lobbyists I think is a great idea, I wish California would do it too, but that doesn't excuse his hypocrisy over the Citizens United ruling.
Click to expand...

THat's not exactly hypocritical.

Get back to me when his planned reform ends corporate donations for others, but not him.

As longas he supports reform to end the donations including for him, but takes the donations while they're legal for everyone, that's not quite hypocrisy.

Unfortunately, I'd like to say he stands up to the donors well, but I can't.
 
woolfe9999 said:
You're right, he didn't completely reform the system in Illinois while in office. He did, however, sponsor and pass the most sweeping lobbyist and campaign finance reform the state has seen in decades.

- wolf
Click to expand...

Here are the bills of which Obama was a primary sponsor.
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/SenatorBills.asp?GA=93&MemberID=747&Primary=True

Here are all the bills of which Obama signed as sponsor or a co-sponsor.
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/SenatorBills.asp?MemberID=747&GA=93

To which are you referring? Because if it is Silverstein's (later Garrett's) bill, half the Senate were sponsors, most (like Obama) joining up after the first reading. That's hardly an Obama accomplishment, jumping on to a hugely popular bill months after it is written, read, and proven popular. I recall nothing of any import that actually originated with Obama.
 
The biggest problem here is hypocrisy. Whether it's legal or illegal, morally or ethically right or wrong, is completely irrelevant.

When you preach one thing and practice another, there's a problem. Obama has been doing this for the last year on virtually everything.
 
drebo said:
The biggest problem here is hypocrisy. Whether it's legal or illegal, morally or ethically right or wrong, is completely irrelevant.

When you preach one thing and practice another, there's a problem. Obama has been doing this for the last year on virtually everything.
Click to expand...

You don't get it.

Put Obama to the saide. If a politician supports campaign finance reform that would affect him as well, but takes the contributions while his opponents do as needed to get elected, that's not exactly hypocrisy.

It's pretty idiotic to hold them to the standard that they can't get elected to vote for good reform, instead making them lost to people who are against the reform.

It reminds me a little of the 'scanda'l of Sam Donaldson's ranch. He had said he was for ending subsidies for the industry - but scandaloulsy, he took the subsidy money.

As he explained, it was business and he was competing - if everyone lost the subsidy he was for that, but if his competitors got it, he needed it to be competitive. Not hypocrisy.

Now if he'd called for a ban, say, of inhuman treatment of animals, something that's 'wrong, period', and he did it, that's a case of hypocrisy,
 
Last edited:
dammitgibs said:
Well it's an issue to me. Maybe I shouldn't hold my elected officials to such a high standard?
Click to expand...

What are you talking abiout? Hold THEM to a high standard. As a group. Don't expect one to let his opponents get all the money and win until the rules are fixed for both sides.
 
werepossum said:
Here are the bills of which Obama was a primary sponsor.
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/SenatorBills.asp?GA=93&MemberID=747&Primary=True

Here are all the bills of which Obama signed as sponsor or a co-sponsor.
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/SenatorBills.asp?MemberID=747&GA=93

To which are you referring? Because if it is Silverstein's (later Garrett's) bill, half the Senate were sponsors, most (like Obama) joining up after the first reading. That's hardly an Obama accomplishment, jumping on to a hugely popular bill months after it is written, read, and proven popular. I recall nothing of any import that actually originated with Obama.
Click to expand...

Dunno, this is what I have read:

"Legislatively, Obama managed to pass a decent number of laws for a first-term lawmaker in the minority party. His first major legislative accomplishment was shepherding a piece of campaign finance reform in May 1998. The measure prohibited lawmakers from soliciting campaign funds while on state property and from accepting gifts from state contractors, lobbyists or other interests.
The senate’s Democratic leader offered Obama the opportunity to push through the bill because it seemed like a good fit fo the do-good persona projected by Obama. It was a tough assignment for a new lawmaker, since he was essentially sponsoring legislation that would strip away long-held privileges and perks from his colleagues. One colleague angrily denounced the bill, saying that it impinged on lawmakers’ inherent rights. But Obama worked the issue by an overwhelming 52-4 vote.

The bill lifted Illinois, a state with a deep history of illicit, pay-to-play politics, into the modern world when it came to restrictions."

Maybe he wasn't technically a sponsor of this bill?

http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Barack_Obama_Government_Reform.htm

- wolf
 
woolfe9999 said:
If we disqualify every politician who ever took special interest money in his or her career from ever speaking out, or taking action, against taking special interest money, lest they be called hypocrits, then it's a fair bet that none could ever speak out or take action against it.

- wolf
Click to expand...

another apologizer
 
Craig234 said:
THat's not exactly hypocritical.

Get back to me when his planned reform ends corporate donations for others, but not him.

As longas he supports reform to end the donations including for him, but takes the donations while they're legal for everyone, that's not quite hypocrisy.

Unfortunately, I'd like to say he stands up to the donors well, but I can't.
Click to expand...

I agree and disagree with you on this single post Craig.

This is what I disagree with. First, it IS hypocrisy. If someone feels that strongly about it, they should under no circumstance do it regardless if it is "allowed" or everyone else is doing it. That is actually the definition of hypocrisy.




He also didn't make this statement until after the fact. So.... maybe something happened that made him change his mind and wake up? Sometimes people do things that they don't think anything is wrong with until after they are exposed to it. Maybe this is the case here. Maybe he is truly being a hypocrite to degree because in the end he feels the end justifies the means so long as the means "don't hurt anyone" but his own pride. We can't say at this point so it's a non-issue.

Look at it this way, I am a non-theist, and don't agree with any Church out there. Why? because it took me going to various houses of worships for various religions to come to my conclusion. Yah, this is almost an anecdotal argument, but the point I'm getting across is that going to Churches and being a non-theist isn't hypocritical in my case. It took me being exposed to form my opinions.
 
woolfe9999 said:
Dunno, this is what I have read:

"Legislatively, Obama managed to pass a decent number of laws for a first-term lawmaker in the minority party. His first major legislative accomplishment was shepherding a piece of campaign finance reform in May 1998. The measure prohibited lawmakers from soliciting campaign funds while on state property and from accepting gifts from state contractors, lobbyists or other interests.
The senate’s Democratic leader offered Obama the opportunity to push through the bill because it seemed like a good fit fo the do-good persona projected by Obama. It was a tough assignment for a new lawmaker, since he was essentially sponsoring legislation that would strip away long-held privileges and perks from his colleagues. One colleague angrily denounced the bill, saying that it impinged on lawmakers’ inherent rights. But Obama worked the issue by an overwhelming 52-4 vote.

The bill lifted Illinois, a state with a deep history of illicit, pay-to-play politics, into the modern world when it came to restrictions."

Maybe he wasn't technically a sponsor of this bill?

http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Barack_Obama_Government_Reform.htm

- wolf
Click to expand...

That would be the 90th General Assembly. Here are those records: http://www.ilga.gov/reports/static/90th_GA_Senators.pdf
Here's a searchable page on just Obama's legislation. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet90/sponsor/OBAMA.html

Almost everything he sponsored died (although he did get November 1st, 1997 declared South Shore Islamic Community Center Day 🙂.) The remainder seems to be pretty much without any major substance. It's clear he didn't sponsor this bill, although he might have co-sponsored it. I think maybe this article refers to HB0672, of which he was a co-sponsor in the Senate, but I could be wrong. (By the way, that bill was written and sponsored by Tom Cross, a Republican.) I'd be amazed if a freshman Democrat Senator was actually responsible for passing a Republican ethics bill in a Republican-controlled state legislature - especially since the documentation for this claim seems to start around 2007 - but if he did, then good for him.

To be honest, my own due diligence during the election did not go back that far. He was rated the most liberal Senator during his brief stint with the US Senate, which told me I wouldn't be voting for him, although I did go back into his state Senate record just to see if he was merely moving far left to set himself up for his Senate run. However parts of your linked reference is written in the first person, which leads me to believe this is a less than honest source of information. This seems to be a stretch even for something written by Obama himself, but it wouldn't be the first time a politician made such an outlandish claim. And as I said, I didn't research that far back, so I don't know what role he played in its passage - although I suspect that a bill that passes 54-2 doesn't require a lot of persuasion or arm-twisting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top