Guess who took corporate financing for his state senate campaign fund

[Craig234]

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.

I'm not sure what the agree part was, but I'm a bit surprised at the amount of objection to this issue.

The basic idea is there is a spectrum of opinion on behavrio, and some is hypocritical some is not.

If you had responded to the Sam Donaldson anecdote, it would help clarify your objection.

Part of it lies in your 'if he objects that strongly' phrase.

You did not say anything abou tmy previous explanation, the idea of inherently objectionable versus the idea of rules everyone should be following but if not enacted it's ok not to follow.

Having nothing to go on to my previous points that were not answered, I'll add more.

Since this is still not seemiog understood I'll add a very strong example the other direction.

Let's say you and a group want to see a film, and you suggest avatar while others pick another film.

At that point, are you morally obligated to see Avatar alone since you suggested it, or can you see the other film with the group instead? Are you hypocritical for recommending avatar but seeing the other film?

I don't want to hear 'but that's riducluous, it's harmless' now. After several explanations without explanations, it's needed.

You can gradually ratchet up the example - if you're playing softball and you say 'this is a fun game, let's allow 5 strikes' with your team agreeing, but the other team says 'no, 3 strikes' and you do that, are you then obligated to give them 5 strikes while you only get 3? Are you hypocritical for suggesting 5 but only giving them 3 with everyone else?

I could add more, but let's skip ahead - you say "we politicians should not accept special interest money", but the other side doesn't agree and it doesn't pass. So the rules of the 'game' are 'players' can take it.

So should you let the other side take millions, while you take none and can't get elected? Is it hypocritical for you to support ending the donations for everyone, but follow the same rules until it passes?

What I'm saying is that this falls short of something so immoral you are saying no one should do it period, like, say, taking criminal bribes. IN that case, if another lawmaker does it, you can't say "then I will too".

(Now, if it were so extreme the other side were all taking tons of bribes and wining elections and someting was broken in enforcing the law, that could raise another question, but let's not overdo this).

If that helps, great. If not, try responding to the many examples I've posted like Sam Donaldson.

 

[werepossum]

Man, with all the Obama supporters here I didn't expect that overwhelming chorus of crickets after my last post.

 

[woolfe9999]

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.

The bill was indeed HB672. You can choose to disbelieve the source regarding Obama's role in passing it, just as you can choose to disbelieve any source. Be aware that the first person portion of the passage is likely a case of the website dropping a quotation mark from a book they drew the passage from. The passage is likely part quote and part not quote.

According to factcheck (quoting the Chicago Trib), the bill actually had four sponors:

"The Illinois Campaign for Political Reform applauds the Illinois legislature for passing the bipartisan campaign finance and ethics package...the bill's sponsors, state Sens. Kirk Dillard (R--Hinsdale) and Barack Obama (D--Chicago), and state Reps. Gary Hannig (D--Litchfield) and Jack Kubik (R--La Grange Park), made campaign finance reform in Illinois a reality by forging areas of common ground. With the support of legislative leaders, both parties and houses moved beyond their differences to pass this landmark legislation. All are to be strongly commended." [Chicago Tribune, 6/20/98]

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/14/fact_check_on_milbanks_claim_t.php

- wolf

 

[shira]

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.

You're wrong, plain and simple.

Obama never said a politician shouldn't accept money from corporations. If he had, and then accepted such money, he'd be a hypocrite.

What he said is that LAWS should be passed that would make corporate contributions illegal or severely restricted. And then he supported such laws, laws that he himself would be subjected to.

It would have been hypocrisy if he'd advocated such laws to get or stay elected, but then worked against passage of such laws because he really didn't believe in them.

On a personal note, I believe marginal income tax rates for the wealthy should be higher, and I happen to fall into that category. Given the reality that existing tax rates for the wealthy are lower than I believe they should be, am I a hypocrite because I don't voluntarily send in extra taxes to the government equal to the rate I think people at my income level should pay? Don't be ridiculous.

 

[dammitgibs]

What he said is that LAWS should be passed that would make corporate contributions illegal or severely restricted. And then he supported such laws, laws that he himself would be subjected to.

Uhh you mean like the law we've had for the past hundred years that says corporate contributions are illegal? and are still illegal today?