Obama inauguration will take unlimited corporate funds

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/...-will-take-unlimited-corporate-funds#comments
Obama inauguration will take unlimited corporate funds

By NBC's Ali Weinberg


President Barack Obama will accept unlimited corporate contributions to help finance his 2013 inauguration, a shift from 2009, when corporate funding was barred and per-person donations were capped at $50,000.
The president's inaugural committee made the decision, which was first reported by Politico, because, they said, contributions from individuals alone would not raise enough to cover the price tag of all the events.
"Our goal is to make sure that we will meet the fundraising requirements for this civic event after the most expensive presidential campaign in history," Addie Whisenant, spokesperson for the Presidential Inauguration Committee, said in a statement.
The inaugural committee in 2008 said that its ban on corporate funding, among other initiatives, would help "underscore their commitment to change business as usual in Washington."
Lobbyists and political action committees are still barred from donating, and there will be no sponsorship agreements. All corporate contributions will be vetted and the committee will not accept any from companies who accepted TARP funds and haven't paid them back yet.
The inaugural committee also notes that these are the same guidelines to which civic organizations like arts museums and the American Red Cross adhere.
I thought corporate loving Romney lost the election.:whiste::colbert:
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
it would be funny if no companies wanted to contribute, wishful thinking for sure
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
701
126
Lots of things go out the window when you're not running again (or so it seems).

Edit: At least it's not taxpayer money.
 

Vic Vega

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2010
4,536
3
0
The president's inaugural committee made the decision, which was first reported by Politico, because, they said, contributions from individuals alone would not raise enough to cover the price tag of all the events.

That pretty much says it all right there.
 

Smoblikat

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2011
5,184
107
106
"Romney only cares about the 1%, thats why we need to steal their money and give it to the lazy"

:takes 1% money to throw a party for himself:
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
23,413
10,304
136
Well, I guess he could do the inaguration like Jimmy Carter but then the country would laugh at him for being a backward hick.

There's no winning with haters.

I do beleive this whole corporate love fest has gotten way out of control, but we get no push back since all of the MSM entertainment news organizations are corporate whores.
 
Last edited:

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,519
6,952
136
Taking money from the very folks that spent billions of $$$ to get him out of office but now they find they have to suck up to Obama with donations to keep their corporate welfare wagon rolling?

Sweet justice in my opinion.

And now we have the very folks who branded Obama as an anti-business communist now saying he's actually owned by the businesses Obama was supposed to be against?

It just can't get more hilarious than this. It just can't. lol
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,044
27,777
136
So the pos obama lied, When will his idiotic supporters admit he was wrong

He was wrong on this one. Where do you go from there? On the list of broken promises not concerned about this one.

Frankly I think there shouldn't be an inauguration when POTUS is re-elected.

An inauguration is a formal ceremony to mark the beginning of a major political leader's term of office.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Isn't this a good thing? Obama's going to spend what he wants to spend, and if it didn't come out of the corporate slush funds we'd have to pay the tab. Plus, those slush funds would be doing other things for him anyway. Politicians are the best investment a huge corporation can make; they've bought Obama, and while they might not be able to buy Romney he's in agreement with pretty much what they want anyway. And where he isn't, they'd just buy the support of the Senators and Representatives he would need to get anything done.

The only real difference I see here is that the media would be doing its best to shame President Romney into not taking corporate donations, so a President Romney gala would be funded by the same people just with after-tax dollars. For me, I'm just glad the Messiah didn't need to find a way to add it to the national debt. Count this as a small blessing rather than hypocrisy.