Obama Didn't Want My Money

[Heisenberg]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/7/124812/3285/604/491642

Obama Didn't Want My Money - Updated w/link to letter
by Borell
Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:12:52 AM PDT
I just had the strangest experience. A presidential candidate gave me back my donation, told me would not accept it because of what I do for a living, and it left me more committeed to the candidate and conviced that he is the person that must be the next president.

I went to the mailbox and found a letter from the Obama Campaign. Enclosed was a check for $100, the return of my contribution from earlier this month along with a letter explaining why it would not be accepted.

You see, I am a registered lobbyist for a non-profit organziation. We are a non-partisan, non-political membership organziation, we do not have a political action committee and strictly observe a policy of non-particpation in any event that even remotely appears political. I serve as their legislative rep, trying to ensure that expertise of our membership is heard by public officials on issues related to their area of expertise (public safety).

I guess given the fact that I was not a corporate/industry lobbyist, I never really considered that Obama's no-lobbyist money ban would apply to me, but it did! The letter thanked me for my interest in the campaign, but stated flately that my donation was not acceptable.

It's not often you get told that you are persona non grata and end up praising the person who exiled you. But that what I am doing. Obama actions are living up to his words. Through the actions of his campaign he is demonstrating that his values are real and his commitment is certain.

Another aspect that is quite impressive to me is that the Obama campaign has a mechnism set up to check each donation, even one as small as mine, against the lobbyist database, and then return it.

If I ever doubted the sincerity of the Obama Campaign, this action removed any questions.

I know my donation is not going to make a difference one way or another, and I hope that I am not the type of "corrupt lobbyist" that has infested washington.

Obama, and his campaign, are committed to bringing about change. They are doing this in both large and small steps. Refusing my money is a small step, but it spoke volumes to me. It showed me Obama means what he says and backs it up with action. It shows me that no detail is to small and that his organization is top notch. It strengthened my commitment to see him elected President.

I guess I just can't use my money to do it:).

p.s.: As a side note, last year my spouse had set up automatic monthly payments to Hillary (nothing big $10/month) but after switching to Obama, had to battle with the Clinton campaign to cancel the automatic payment. I find it ironic that one campaign won't take my money, the other won't give it back!

Updated to add: I though we had finally stopped the payments to the Clinton Campaign, but after checking with my spouse, it turns out they are still taking the payments 3-4 months after we asked them to stop.

Updated: Couldn't figure out how to post the image of the letter on the site. So below is a link. If nyone can figure out how to post in the comments, pls feel free. Thanks

http://s297.photobucket.com/albums/mm227/borell12/?action=view&current=obamascan.jpg&track=tag_email_clickthrough

[Danny White]

what a saint

[Ben_n_austin]

what a saint

McCain in '08 :yourock:

[Jordan55]

http://cagle.com/news/ObamaObama/images3/cam.gif

[ZeroClub]

I'd think that most people here, even those who don't plan to vote for Obama, would be on board with limiting lobbyist contributions.

[ConcordCowboy]

Good for Obama.

http://images.cafepress.com/image/9010461_400x400.jpg

[SultanOfSix]

I'd think that most people here, even those who don't plan to vote for Obama, would be on board with limiting lobbyist contributions.

Yep. He had my vote, but this article only further reinforced his integrity to me. I've felt for years that campaign finance reform is definitely needed.

[Danny White]

McCain in '08 :yourock:

I thought you were going to write-in Gravel.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I thought you were going to write-in Gravel.

Maybe I was just imagining it...but I thought I heard somewhere that Gravel might go on an indie ticket...probably just imagined it though.

[Jon88]

Maybe I was just imagining it...but I thought I heard somewhere that Gravel might go on an indie ticket...probably just imagined it though.

Who's next, Asphault?

[Rackat]

http://cagle.com/news/ObamaObama/images3/cam.gif
:lmao: That's great!

[vta]

No matter what you think of the guy, he's doing and saying everything right.
It's going to take some dirty pool to overcome him for the nomination.

[Jon88]

No matter what you think of the guy, he's doing and saying everything right.
It's going to take some dirty pool to overcome him for the nomination.


He doesn't lie as much as Clinton does.

[arglebargle]

The great thing is, if Obama or McCain get in, the chances for campaign reform are much stronger. It's one of my major beefs with Clinton, actually.

[Heisenberg]

The great thing is, if Obama or McCain get in, the chances for campaign reform are much stronger. It's one of my major beefs with Clinton, actually.

Exactly. Plus, the campaigns themselves should be pretty civilized in their debate. I know the 527s won't, but the campaigns will. :D

[iceberg]

He doesn't lie as much as Clinton does.

who could? hillary is an olympic gold medalist with several world records in lying to her credit.

[Jordan55]

He may not want your money now, but he plans to spend it later.
Obama, a change we can't afford.


Healthcare:
First, paying for healthcare. The past several years have seen several million Americans start Health Savings Accounts. They enable people to save and accumulate money tax-free to pay for personal or family medical costs. They empower individuals to shop for the best deals and eliminate waste, stewarding their own resources to care for their own families.

But Mr. Obama has different ideas. He opposes HSAs, and his now-infamous 1996 questionnaire shows he has always opposed personal health care autonomy. Instead, he wants the central government to make all of those decisions for you and your family. A massive federal bureaucracy will decide what medical procedures doctors can perform, who qualifies for what treatments, and who can perform what services.

The price tag for this bureaucratic colossus is a stunning $800 billion, and that is just for starters. And how will he pay for this? He is going to raise taxes. While some might say that would all come from “the rich,” even a quick glance shows “the rich” cannot provide almost a trillion dollars.

Capital Gains Taxation:
Second, Mr. Obama now wants to double the tax on capital gains. Supposedly, this only taxes “the rich” and is consistent with the publicly expressed doctrine of his church, which decries the accumulation of wealth. This includes the wealth accumulation by those of middle income.

His plan taxes the middle class and those who have saved. In 1980, 20% of Americans owned stock, which would be subject to the tax. But now almost 60% of Americans own stock, so this tax would take money out of every 401k, every IRA, every college-savings investment account, and away from retirees who put any money into stock for retirement.

Charitable Giving: Third, giving. Since 2000, in the years where Mr. Obama and his wife made between $200,000 and $300,000, they gave about 1% of their income to charity. Much of that 1% was given to Jeremiah Wright’s church.

This again shows Mr. Obama’s worldview. He clearly believes that rather than giving generously to those in need and to worthy causes and charities, the government should do the giving. Since government has no money, that means it needs to take more of your money through taxes, so that it can decide who deserves your money.

For those who might object that these are cherry-picked incidents, consider this: according to National Journal Barack Obama is the number one most liberal member of the U.S. Senate. National Journal is hardly a conservative mouthpiece. Its ratings are well accepted as an objective benchmark, and Mr. Obama’s record puts him to the left of Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer.

Trusting the People:
In the American system, we trust the people to make self-interest and informed decisions, according to their own wants and needs. That is freedom. This is opposed to collectivist decision-making from a central government.

But, central government planning is what Mr. Obama’s policies require. He would rather tax you and spend your own money for your own good than trust you to decide how to spend your money.

More good is accomplished for more people by private organizations and citizens freely giving as they see fit than a bureaucratic national government amassing and redistributing billions of dollars according to some political formulation.

High taxes, but low personal giving, also is consistent with this emerging picture of Mr. Obama. Someone who thinks that government carries the primary burden for caring for the poor, feeding the hungry, and housing the homeless, is likely not to give much money to charities, but require all citizens to give hundreds of billions of dollars to the inefficient central government to address these issues.

I wonder if we can afford Mr. Obama’s generosity.

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/d/1/2/obubble.jpg

###

[Heisenberg]

Speaking of money raising...

$1 million bucks in a single minute?

http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/apr2008/id2008047_357799.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily

[ZeroClub]

Jordan, your posted article reads like it was written by a collection of lobbyists.

[Jordan55]

Jordan, your posted article reads like it was written by a collection of lobbyists.


Zero, I just find it humorous that were reading an article on Obama, returning $100.00 and touting his beyond reproach status campaign for change.
Yet the socialistic changes, that he proposes to the American public will require all citizens to give hundreds of billions of dollars in additional taxes to managed by an inefficient central government to handle.
Do you see a problem?
I think this cartoon hits the nail on the head.
http://cagle.com/news/ObamaObama/images3/cam.gif

[Danny White]

Like I said before... what a saint.


http://www.newsday.com/news/local/politics/ny-usobam0413,0,6020233.story

Obama draws fine line between lobbyist, lawyer donors.

WASHINGTON - Last fall, Barack Obama quietly slipped into the Miami headquarters of a major law firm scarred by the scandals of Jack Abramoff, its once-powerful Washington lobbyist who now sits in jail.

Arriving a little after 10 a.m. on Oct. 1, Obama spent the next three hours schmoozing, speaking in a video conference to branch offices and raising money at Greenberg Traurig, a billion-dollar firm with one of the biggest lobby shops here.

Obama has now raised about $125,000 from Greenberg Traurig employees -- nearly half of it at the time of the event -- more than from any of the other top law and lobby firms.

Symbolically, it was a starkly contradictory event: an appearance by the candidate who crusades most adamantly against lobbyists at the onetime firm of the poster child for out-of-control influence peddling.

Public anger over the Abramoff lobbying scandal led Obama to institute the ban on lobbyist money in the first place, an aide said last year.

Realistically, it shows the fine line Obama draws when he says he does not accept money from lobbyists and political action committees, while raising a stunning $200-plus million overall.

Taking funds from lawyers but not lobbyists -- the distinction Obama draws -- is "hair splitting," according to League of Women Voters president Mary Wilson.

"It has huge symbolic value to take the no-PAC pledge and reject lobbying money, particularly for a campaign that presents itself as populist," said Sheila Krumholz of the Center for Responsive Politics.

But she added, "When you dig deeper, the interests that finance the Obama campaign are much the same as the others."

Setting a higher bar

Obama, say Krumholz and other analysts, also has opened himself to added scrutiny by saying he sets the bar higher on ethics in campaign finance.

Presumptive GOP nominee John McCain, co-sponsor of campaign finance reform laws, faces similar scrutiny. He's been criticized for relying on lobbyists to run his campaign.

McCain and Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton also had Greenberg Traurig events, but they accept lobbyist and PAC money, saying it won't sway them.

Obama aides defend his stand against lobbyist funds.

"This policy isn't a perfect solution to the problem of money and politics and special-interest sway in Washington," spokesman Ben LaBolt told Newsday. "But it is an important symbol of the kind of administration that Obama will have in the White House."

Now Obama finds himself with a tough decision: whether to submit to public financing in the fall election if he is the nominee, limiting him to $85 million.

McCain, unable to match Obama's fundraising, has indicated he may opt for the public money and is challenging Obama to live up to a promise both made last year to do so.

Campaign-reform advocates say a publicly financed election is the only way to restrict special-interest money. They applaud Obama's ethics record in Illinois and Congress, but say if he opts out of public funding, they'll be very disappointed.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Jordan, your posted article reads like it was written by a collection of lobbyists.

You do realize that there will be MANY people making money if we get universal health care so I am sure they have their lobbyists as well.

The problem I see with it even more is that with the people paying the taxes into the system with big brother (government) controlling said money...we could actually wind up getting worse health care while actually making the pharmaceutical companies more money.

I mean it is never like the government overspends for things or companies with contract with the government every overcharge.

Plus something else to consider with government controlled health care. Not only does the quality of care go down...but I would not be shocked if you wind up finding yourself on the bad side of a terrible doctor who commits a terrible terrible negligent act and you find out that since the government controls the overall industry...you can not sue said doctor.

Think of the military, SS and medicaid, if you want a universal health care provider currently used by the US. Sure it works for those people, but is it really the best?

Should it ever be mandatory for ALL? No just the ones in the middle.

Would you be able to take a doctor to court or would it be a case where you can not no matter what, as I THINK it is in the military.

Ok...I am rambling now...sorry.:D

[ZeroClub]

One of the things with universal health care ... it doesn't have to be "either - or."

The way universal health care is set up in some places is that the population has a safety net, a rudimentary no-frills level of care, such that far fewer people go bankrupt as a result of medical costs and fewer uninsured people have non-emergency issues dealt with in (higher cost) emergency rooms.

Although everyone is in the universal health care system (and people with incomes contribute to the system), people can pay extra for access to better services. Because the universal care scheme pays the costs associated with low income / unemployed / uninsured people, the cost of higher tier services is lessened somewhat.