Lurker Posted October 19, 2008 Posted October 19, 2008 Well there are checks there. Max $2300 per person right ? But hey if a lot of ppl believe in him enough that they pay him (3.1 million donors so far !!! .. average of $90 or somethin per donor), what can u do. Reposting as my earlier response seems to have gotten lost. I have two issues with raising money the way Obama has Varun. a) Quite simply this is an exercise that will render elections directly propotional to donation generated. As it is people are cynical that politics is only for people who have, or can raise, money. This development of raising billions doesnt help Democratic process(other than putting money in pockets of media, lobbyists etc...the very group Obama claims he shall fight). b) What happens to the money?? Obama's raising of millions is akin to Ron Paul(or Howard Dean in 2004). What happened to Ron paul's millions?? If Obama raises about a billion dollars(which he surely will) and spends say about 750 million dollars, what happens to 250 million dollars? Do they get sent back to donors? Or are they held by Obama Group for a re-election(if he is elected in 2008) or election(if he is not elected) bid in 2012?? Either way I can see how this is a way corruption happens. Ideally I would like Obama and McCain both to run on the same resources. I can even understand one having significantly more. At this time Obama has 150$ million in 1 month while McCain's entire coffer is 85 million$. How is that fair? xxx
varun Posted October 19, 2008 Posted October 19, 2008 a) Quite simply this is an exercise that will render elections directly propotional to donation generated. Proportional to the number of donors. There is a difference. b) What happens to the money?? Obama's raising of millions is akin to Ron Paul(or Howard Dean in 2004). What happened to Ron paul's millions?? If Obama raises about a billion dollars(which he surely will) and spends say about 750 million dollars, what happens to 250 million dollars? Do they get sent back to donors? Or are they held by Obama Group for a re-election(if he is elected in 2008) or election(if he is not elected) bid in 2012? There is a bill that prohibits converting campaign funds for personal use. The law lets campaign funds be used for "any other lawful purpose." It is possible to use leftover money for another campaign or a legal defense fund, example: John Kerry transfered money from his 2004 presidential run to his current senate campaign. Regarding this whole flak about Obama gaining a lot of campign money, here are a few things that I would like to point out: 1. Obama is raising taxes on people earning above $650,000.. and cutting for ppl below $250,000.. So who is giving him the money ? Think about it.. It is mostly the reasonably well off middle class + some not so well off people. The average donation per donor is $90 for the course of 3-4 months. Why shouldn't a person that has more supporters have an advantage ? It is only democratic 2. Why should both the campaigns have the same amount of money when their supporting parties do not ? Do you know that the RNC has traditionally had twice the amount of money that the DNC had. (They still have an advantage over the DNC but not as much). Here the money is being given to Obama and Obama alone, not to the Democratic Party as such. And many ads are sponsored by their respective parties (not to mention the huuuge advantage that Republican 527s have - mainly because the fatcats support the republicans 'coz of their tax-cuts for the rich policy)
Rajiv Posted October 19, 2008 Posted October 19, 2008 *Edited* One more unprovoked abuse from THX and he is staring at a ban. He has cried all over when he was given warning points last time, thinks he can get away with his nonsense..he has already stepped the line Come back in 5 days Probably needs to download some books on Anger Mgmt this time
vroomfondel Posted October 19, 2008 Posted October 19, 2008 Reposting as my earlier response seems to have gotten lost. I have two issues with raising money the way Obama has Varun. a) Quite simply this is an exercise that will render elections directly propotional to donation generated. As it is people are cynical that politics is only for people who have, or can raise, money. This development of raising billions doesnt help Democratic process(other than putting money in pockets of media, lobbyists etc...the very group Obama claims he shall fight). b) What happens to the money?? Obama's raising of millions is akin to Ron Paul(or Howard Dean in 2004). What happened to Ron paul's millions?? If Obama raises about a billion dollars(which he surely will) and spends say about 750 million dollars, what happens to 250 million dollars? Do they get sent back to donors? Or are they held by Obama Group for a re-election(if he is elected in 2008) or election(if he is not elected) bid in 2012?? Either way I can see how this is a way corruption happens. Ideally I would like Obama and McCain both to run on the same resources. I can even understand one having significantly more. At this time Obama has 150$ million in 1 month while McCain's entire coffer is 85 million$. How is that fair? xxx It is fair. It's a freedom of speech issue -- my donation is my endorsement. you can even out the playing field by putting a cap on individual contributions (which already exist, as varun pointed out). If you can generate more money, that means you are mobilizing the populace and deserve to win. It's equivalent to Oxfam getting more money than Jews for Jesus. More people care about and want to support Oxfam issues: doesn't mean that all charities should get equal hissa.
Ram Posted October 19, 2008 Posted October 19, 2008 If moneypower and man power are to decide elections, then no ruling party should ever lose an election in India. After all, the incumbent govt. blatantly abuses state machinery for campaign purposes. Elections are not won or lost on campaign ads. Its decided mostly on either a strong anti-incumbency factor ( which is what is prevailing against the current Bush administration) or a strong and refreshing leadership from the opposition.
Lurker Posted October 20, 2008 Posted October 20, 2008 Proportional to the number of donors. There is a difference. Yes that was my stand initially as well. However to generate 150 million dollars in one month is no joke. Doesnt matter to me about the number of donors Varun, this is entirely going over the top. There is a bill that prohibits converting campaign funds for personal use. The law lets campaign funds be used for "any other lawful purpose." It is possible to use leftover money for another campaign or a legal defense fund, example: John Kerry transfered money from his 2004 presidential run to his current senate campaign. Thats what I guessed. And I must say I wont be too happy with that. The way I look at it is I might have contributed towards McCain in 2000 who I thought was better than both Bush and Gore. However no way would I want my contribution in 2000 to be used in McCain's 2008 election. Clearly when donors donate they are doing it for that particular race and not just handing over their money to the respective leader to spend it in any campaign of his choice. 1. Obama is raising taxes on people earning above $650,000.. and cutting for ppl below $250,000.. So who is giving him the money ? Think about it.. It is mostly the reasonably well off middle class + some not so well off people. The average donation per donor is $90 for the course of 3-4 months. Why shouldn't a person that has more supporters have an advantage ? It is only democratic My criticism has never been about the size of an individual contribution. It has clearly been about the sum of individual parts. As of now Obama has been generating millions, and possibly billions, on his own, nevermind the money generated by DNC. We are not talking of 100 million here and there, we are talking of billions here mind you so yes I do have issues with the sheer size. 2. Why should both the campaigns have the same amount of money when their supporting parties do not ? Do you know that the RNC has traditionally had twice the amount of money that the DNC had. (They still have an advantage over the DNC but not as much). Here the money is being given to Obama and Obama alone, not to the Democratic Party as such. And many ads are sponsored by their respective parties (not to mention the huuuge advantage that Republican 527s have - mainly because the fatcats support the republicans 'coz of their tax-cuts for the rich policy) Thats not convincing Varun. If Republicans spend more then clearly they are to be blamed as well. Again, my issue has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans, it is simply why does one need to spend this much money? It is not exactly that Obama is going to towns and spending these money. He is using it for ads and essentially putting money into the coffers of those, like media, whose responsibility is to cover the election and not engage in giving prime slots to selective candidates. xxx
Lurker Posted October 20, 2008 Posted October 20, 2008 It's equivalent to Oxfam getting more money than Jews for Jesus. More people care about and want to support Oxfam issues: doesn't mean that all charities should get equal hissa. Surely elections are a different cup of tea than charity Vroom.
Lurker Posted October 20, 2008 Posted October 20, 2008 Elections are not won or lost on campaign ads. Its decided mostly on either a strong anti-incumbency factor ( which is what is prevailing against the current Bush administration) or a strong and refreshing leadership from the opposition. Fair enough. So then it should make sense for both candidates to agree on Public funding and instead of spening a grand total of a billion and change, limit the damage to 200 million and spend the extra on Infrastructure/Health/Education etc. No?
Ram Posted October 20, 2008 Posted October 20, 2008 Fair enough. So then it should make sense for both candidates to agree on Public funding and instead of spening a grand total of a billion and change, limit the damage to 200 million and spend the extra on Infrastructure/Health/Education etc. No? Nope, that is like saying political parties in India must deploy exactly the same number of party cadre to canvass for votes, hold exactly the same number of election ralleys or stick the same number of posters and flyers for election purposes. As long as the money and resources are got through legal channels and there is no abuse of any institution, govt. or otherwise, it is the candidates' inherent right to spend as much resources as they want for sending their message across to the people.
vroomfondel Posted October 20, 2008 Posted October 20, 2008 Surely elections are a different cup of tea than charity Vroom. yeah ok, possibly dumb analogy that i will not defend. you accept the sentence previous, I can assume?
varun Posted October 20, 2008 Posted October 20, 2008 We are not talking of 100 million here and there, we are talking of billions here mind you so yes I do have issues with the sheer size. No we are not talking about billions Lurker. Obama has so far raised around 450 million (just 15 days left, so not going to raise a lot more). And this is a historic election of sorts, don't expect such numbers to come very easily in the future. It is not exactly that Obama is going to towns and spending these money. He is using it for ads and essentially putting money into the coffers of those, like media, whose responsibility is to cover the election and not engage in giving prime slots to selective candidates. xxx Media expenses are less than half actually. Take a look at this: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/expend.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
Kriterion Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 if obama wins it will mean that america has conquored, without doubt, one of the greatest obstacles to racial equity, and by extension claim or reclaim its position as the most tolerant state on earth.
Ram Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 if obama wins it will mean that america has conquored' date=' without doubt, one of the greatest obstacles to racial equity, and by extension claim or reclaim its position as the most tolerant state on earth.[/quote'] Thats like saying there’s gender equality in India coz we’ve had one women PMs in the past, the most powerful person in this present govt. is a women and several of our state CMs have been women. Of course, nothing can be farther from the truth. India continues to be one of THE most gender biased societies in the world. An African American President does not mean racial equality in America either.
punjabi_khota Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 if obama wins it will mean that america has conquored' date=' without doubt, one of the greatest obstacles to racial equity, and by extension claim or reclaim its position as the most tolerant state on earth.[/quote'] Really? So if 45% people in US vote against him, what do you make of that ? I am sure you will agree, if you have been watching news lately, that there are going to be a LOT of people voting against him cuz he is black/son of a Muslim.
Willow_on_fire Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 Really? So if 45% people in US vote against him' date=' what do you make of that ? I am sure you will agree, if you have been watching news lately, that there are going to be a LOT of people voting against him cuz he is [b']black/son of a Muslim. for many racist Americons...that is as bad as it can get.
Kriterion Posted November 4, 2008 Posted November 4, 2008 Really? So if 45% people in US vote against him' date=' what do you make of that ? I am sure you will agree, if you have been watching news lately, that there are going to be a LOT of people voting against him cuz he is black/son of a Muslim.[/quote'] well, think about it. america gets this bad rap of being a racist land. and no doubt there are racists ALL of whom should be condemned. but if barack wins, it speaks volumes that racists are a MINORITY of americans, however large a minority they may be. 55% will always be greater than 45 %. for the record, if you had asked me about the prospects of any color person being president of the US 2 years ago, i would have laughed it off completely. thats how big this is. this is the equivalent of a muslim being PM of india, or a jew being president of iraq or a hindu PM in pakistan or bangladesh. its huge.
Kriterion Posted November 4, 2008 Posted November 4, 2008 Thats like saying there’s gender equality in India coz we’ve had one women PMs in the past, the most powerful person in this present govt. is a women and several of our state CMs have been women. Of course, nothing can be farther from the truth. India continues to be one of THE most gender biased societies in the world. An African American President does not mean racial equality in America either. of course not, thats why i said, one of the obstacles to racial equality as Immortal Technique said, one token negro or latino in power does not mean anything. but at the same time u gotta look at the fact that many white people are willing to be led by a black man. you also have to look at things in perspective. whilst ALL societies have traditionally held women as "property" of men, in america black people were literally bought and sold as slaves. and now one son has gone to the top. thats the difference. women in india were never legally owned by men.
fineleg Posted November 5, 2008 Posted November 5, 2008 I feel obama has only 50/50 chance of winning, despite the polls saying he has it in the bag. When whites actually enter the booth and have to put an X next to the black mans name I don't think many of them can actually do it. When asked in polls many will say they will vote for Obama but in the actual election they will chicken in it. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/ben_macintyre/article4950484.ece dsr, obama won!
DomainK Posted November 5, 2008 Posted November 5, 2008 Just heard an anchor on CNN IBN call Obama "not a professional black". One of the guests suggested that Obama does not represent the black community as such as he is better off. And the anchor said "lets say he is not a professional black":hysterical: Then she understood the mistake and was embarrassed.
Holysmoke Posted November 5, 2008 Posted November 5, 2008 Just heard an anchor on CNN IBN call Obama "not a professional black". One of the guests suggested that Obama does not represent the black community as such as he is better off. And the anchor said "lets say he is not a professional black":hysterical: Then she understood the mistake and was embarrassed. :wall:
Recommended Posts