Have a birthday, wedding, or just expecting gifts in the near future? Give them to Obama instead.

http://www.barackobama.com/news/entry/the-obama-event-registry?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Right from the Obama campaign. You can ask your friends and family to give to the Obama presidency campaign in lieu of a gift.

A rather... strange way to get campaign donations, doubling as a way to make people say "reelecting Obama is more important then themselves." If your invested in his campaign, your more likely to vote, and since this year is all about getting your supporters to attend, since most people already have made up their minds this year. It could as easily backfire, with Republicans using this as evidence that Obama thinks his presidency is more important than the happiness of the people.

Do you think about this new tactic on the part of Obama?

Um... you got that kind of wrong. No, they are not asking for your gifts: "Let your friends know how important this election is to you-register with Obama 2012, and ask for a donation in lieu of a gift."

It sounds strange, though quite a lot less strange than you presented it. Seems... odd. If someone asked for that instead of a gift I'd feel really weird.

Mortai Gravesend:
Um... you got that kind of wrong. No, they are not asking for your gifts: "Let your friends know how important this election is to you-register with Obama 2012, and ask for a donation in lieu of a gift."

It sounds strange, though quite a lot less strange than you presented it. Seems... odd. If someone asked for that instead of a gift I'd feel really weird.

Misread it, edited the OP.

Still, it is indirectly giving a gift destined for you to him instead.

It looks like the Obama team really really really really want to start collecting money to compete with Romney.

In the last campaign Donations from any one induvidual or corporation was capped at just inder 30K(26K?). Now its... not... the sky is the fucking limit.

Now with these "SuperPacs" and seemingly unlimited donations, who Romney is predicted to benefit from... Obama wants the average democrat to get donating... so they can try to out smear the swing-states with blue, so that from space they look bluey-purple, as opposed to redy-purple.

And that, children, is how Obama stole Christmas.

There's something undignified about a head of state asking this of people, but money does talk in US politics, and it's all voluntary. So fine by me, let them beg money however they want.

Comando96:

Now with these "SuperPacs" and seemingly unlimited donations, who Romney is predicted to benefit from... Obama wants the average democrat to get donating... so they can try to out smear the swing-states with blue, so that from space they look bluey-purple, as opposed to redy-purple.

Well, they need money to buy all the guns and ammo to slaughter the blue blooded Republicans to get the state covered in blue, so Tloquenahuaque will decide the election in the red blooded Democrats's favor.

Why else do you think our color scheme is flipped for turns of right leaning and left leaning parties, as compared to the rest of the world?

Ok, more seriously, when did they change the limit laws. Wikipedia still says a single person may only give $2,500 for any person in congress (higher limits for organizations, but it didn't go into a lot of detail). Can you just cite your claim, because this is news to me.

Not G. Ivingname:

Comando96:

Now with these "SuperPacs" and seemingly unlimited donations, who Romney is predicted to benefit from... Obama wants the average democrat to get donating... so they can try to out smear the swing-states with blue, so that from space they look bluey-purple, as opposed to redy-purple.

Well, they need money to buy all the guns and ammo to slaughter the blue blooded Republicans to get the state covered in blue, so Tloquenahuaque will decide the election in the red blooded Democrats's favor.

Why else do you think our color scheme is flipped for turns of right leaning and left leaning parties, as compared to the rest of the world?

Ok, more seriously, when did they change the limit laws. Wikipedia still says a single person may only give $2,500 for any person in congress (higher limits for organizations, but it didn't go into a lot of detail). Can you just cite your claim, because this is news to me.

How can you be a poster here and not know about SuperPacs.

Through a series of retarded SCOTUS decisions there is the ridiculous situation where

Corporations are people
Money equals speech
While you can limit money donated to a politician you cannot stop someone else from running ads for them.

The end result is you have organisations called SuperPacs that are allowed to advertise for or against any politician or political party and they are allowed to accept unlimited amounts of money. They are not technically allowed to coordinate with a candidate, but each candidate has had one that was run by someone they are close with. The candidates can even indirectly tell them what to do, example saying they do not agree with a SuperPac doing X to the media.

The effect SPs are going to have, and have had, is massive. Newt Gingrich for example was bankrolled by a single billionaire. That same guy has already put in $10 million to the Romney SP. A majority of billionaires have two things in common, they are old and white. Make that three things, old, white and Republican. As such SPs are seen to benefit the Republicans.

As for the Obama donation thing, it is hardly a new idea. Charities have been doing this for ages. Obama was on the forefront of campaign fund raising in 2008 using the internet, it is not a surprise that they have come up with new ways to raise money. There are people that are hardcore political supporters that will get people to do this, so why not.

Any different than this?

Apparently having a donation to a chosen nonprofit in lieu of an actual gift is now a "thing" for weddings. Or maybe it was always a thing. I dunno.

On the one hand it's just adding to the list of possible donation targets for the wedding. On the other hand it feels a little tactless to inject politics into what is ostensibly supposed to be a day of celebration and happiness for a couple and their friends/family, regardless of affiliation.

*shrug* Not exactly outrage material.

Not G. Ivingname:
Ok, more seriously, when did they change the limit laws. Wikipedia still says a single person may only give $2,500 for any person in congress (higher limits for organizations, but it didn't go into a lot of detail). Can you just cite your claim, because this is news to me.

O_o

...

o_O

pyrate:
How can you be a poster here and not know about SuperPacs.

This^^^
...just how...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee

Political Actions Committee's:

Federal multi-candidate PACs may contribute to candidates as follows:

$5,000 to a candidate or candidate committee for each election (primary and general elections count as separate elections);
$15,000 to a political party per year; and
$5,000 to another PAC per year.
PACs may make unlimited expenditures independently of a candidate or political party

In 2010, the United States Supreme Court held in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that laws prohibiting corporate and union political expenditures were unconstitutional. Citizens United made it legal for corporations and unions to spend from their general treasuries to finance independent expenditures, but did not alter the prohibition on direct corporate or union contributions to federal campaigns; those are still prohibited. Such organizations seeking to contribute to federal candidate campaigns must still rely on traditional PACs for that purpose. However, they may spend money independently of campaigns without forming a PAC.

If you want this translating from law into English:
They can't "donate it" to a candidate. However they can spend it on trying to get them elected. Different means. Same End.

Also want an Obama supporter's proof?

Now... I sincerely... severely on all possible terms apologize... for Piers Moron... I do, I am truly sorry. We banished him from our country, when instead we should've have imprisoned him for hacking people's phones... I am sorry. So so sorry I cannot apologize enough for him...


Skip to 7:27 if you don't want to hear Bill rant against unhinged gun ownership.

Anyway he found a way to publicly donate 1 million dollars to Obama >.>

Why did he donate to something he claims to personally disagree with? "You play by the rules of the game if you want to win. You may not likes the rules but if you play by your rules then you don't win."

I don't know that it's that odd. In 2004 I was in India during the Dec 26 tsunami. My family hadn't arranged Christmas gifts for me yet because I wasn't coming home for Christmas that year. So I told them instead of giving me presents to just donate to relief aid. If donations in lieu of gifts is becoming a cultural thing in the US than I can only support it, as it shows that causes are finally becoming more important than trinkets.

As for Obama, yeah this is kinda bad he has to ask for it, but it's the nature of this disgusting SuperPAC beast we've created. I'd rather see us get rid of the need for money in election campaigning than make fun of a candidate who needs to ask for money.

pyrate:

Not G. Ivingname:

Comando96:

Now with these "SuperPacs" and seemingly unlimited donations, who Romney is predicted to benefit from... Obama wants the average democrat to get donating... so they can try to out smear the swing-states with blue, so that from space they look bluey-purple, as opposed to redy-purple.

Well, they need money to buy all the guns and ammo to slaughter the blue blooded Republicans to get the state covered in blue, so Tloquenahuaque will decide the election in the red blooded Democrats's favor.

Why else do you think our color scheme is flipped for turns of right leaning and left leaning parties, as compared to the rest of the world?

Ok, more seriously, when did they change the limit laws. Wikipedia still says a single person may only give $2,500 for any person in congress (higher limits for organizations, but it didn't go into a lot of detail). Can you just cite your claim, because this is news to me.

How can you be a poster here and not know about SuperPacs.

Through a series of retarded SCOTUS decisions there is the ridiculous situation where

Corporations are people
Money equals speech
While you can limit money donated to a politician you cannot stop someone else from running ads for them.

The end result is you have organisations called SuperPacs that are allowed to advertise for or against any politician or political party and they are allowed to accept unlimited amounts of money. They are not technically allowed to coordinate with a candidate, but each candidate has had one that was run by someone they are close with. The candidates can even indirectly tell them what to do, example saying they do not agree with a SuperPac doing X to the media.

The effect SPs are going to have, and have had, is massive. Newt Gingrich for example was bankrolled by a single billionaire. That same guy has already put in $10 million to the Romney SP. A majority of billionaires have two things in common, they are old and white. Make that three things, old, white and Republican. As such SPs are seen to benefit the Republicans.

As for the Obama donation thing, it is hardly a new idea. Charities have been doing this for ages. Obama was on the forefront of campaign fund raising in 2008 using the internet, it is not a surprise that they have come up with new ways to raise money. There are people that are hardcore political supporters that will get people to do this, so why not.

Forgot about the Superpacs, my bad.

I don't know why this is all that objectionable. If your family or friends are Obama supporters and you know they are and they know you are, why not a donation in lieu of yet another bit of useless clutter? Personally, I can't think of many gifts I'd appreciate over not having Romney in office for the next four years-- a stable job for my husband, but that's not a trinket either, so... yeah.

It's been a done thing to ask for donations to charity at funerals in the US for quite a long time, and yes, as people get married later and later in life, it's becoming more of a done thing for weddings. Why not, if both bride/groom and bride/groom had their own places and all their own dishes and kitchen crap already, who wants yet more? I've also seen birthday parties saying "the only gift I'd like is the gift of your presence, but if you really must, here's a charity I really like".

Gifting in general is a... fraught... thing. There's all kinds of pressure on both sides, depending on regional/class culture. And the whole business of feeling obligated to give gifts to people you don't know all that well, and on the receiver to be thrilled to get... another bit of clutter they'll then re-gift at the office holiday party. If you know you and the recipient share a common cause, that's a relief from the whole annoying process, IMO.

(And yeah, Obama's slammed hard to make up from a zillion little donations the money Romney has pouring in from big business billionaires. He's not in the wrong to ask people to put their money where their mouth is.)

I think it's a lame way to ask for campaign funds personally.

anyone wondering when us politics will drop the pretense and just give people a list of megacorporations for president?

Kind of silly, but I've seen worse fundraising tricks.

Not G. Ivingname:
Forgot about the Superpacs, my bad.

"Forgot about"? That's currently one of the biggest issues with American politics, is it not?

Anyway, this kind of idea would really only be for the most hardcore of Obama suppporters. Sounds silly. I mean, even a humanitarian who'd rather see the money go to something useful than to buy some materialistic junk would probably rather their money goes to an actual charity instead.

People ask for donations in their names to the cause of their choice in place of gifts all the time. Go read today's obituaries; I guarantee at least one of them will mention that the family would rather you donate money to X than send them flowers.

The Obama campaign reminding people of this rarely-invoked gift-giving tradition may smack somewhat of desperation, but in and of itself there's nothing wrong with it.

JimB:
People ask for donations in their names to the cause of their choice in place of gifts all the time. Go read today's obituaries; I guarantee at least one of them will mention that the family would rather you donate money to X than send them flowers.

Yup, its extremely common. I've seen some married couples ask for donations to feed the poor, for example. I've never seen it in politics before but I don't see the issue. Heck, large charities go around asking to be put in rich people's wills lol.

Not G. Ivingname:
Do you think about this new tactic on the part of Obama?

First of all, change your thread title. You are severely misrepresenting what it's really asking for, and it's only going to derail your thread and make you look bad.

Secondly...eh. I don't think it's a good idea. It would be a great system for charitable organizations--like disaster relief or disease research or something. But a political campaign? No. It's asking people to take their "special days" and just give them to a politician, when it should be the politician making the people feel special. Plus, it's taking an already socially awkward and unstable situation like a wedding and making it political, which is bound to piss off anyone and everyone who disagrees.

Again, good idea for a charity. Bad idea for a political campaign.

Lilani:
Again, good idea for a charity. Bad idea for a political campaign.

What is a charity except a way of participating in the political process, though? What charity doesn't have an agenda and use its proceeds to try to enact laws in its favor?

JimB:

Lilani:
Again, good idea for a charity. Bad idea for a political campaign.

What is a charity except a way of participating in the political process, though? What charity doesn't have an agenda and use its proceeds to try to enact laws in its favor?

While many charitable groups do participate political lobbying, not all of them do. On the other hand, all political campaigns do political lobbying.

Imperator_DK:
And that, children, is how Obama stole Christmas.

I found a new catchphrase. Thank you.

I could save Obama a fuckton of money.

A range of billboard in each state, no fancy designs...

'Gays - Romney hates you and wants no-one to marry you'
'Women - Romney hates your vagina but wants to marry you'
'Men - Romney hates you so much that when you're married, he wants to take away your pornos'

Seriously tho, it blows my fucking MIND the sheer amount of money, AND the length of time spent campaigning for the election over there.

Would it kill to have a law that says no campaigning til a month before the elections? That'd save about $50 billion dollars right?

It's not like most Americans haven't already decided.

SenseOfTumour:
I could save Obama a fuckton of money.

A range of billboard in each state, no fancy designs...

'Gays - Romney hates you and wants no-one to marry you'
'Women - Romney hates your vagina but wants to marry you'
'Men - Romney hates you so much that when you're married, he wants to take away your pornos'

Seriously tho, it blows my fucking MIND the sheer amount of money, AND the length of time spent campaigning for the election over there.

Would it kill to have a law that says no campaigning til a month before the elections? That'd save about $50 billion dollars right?

It's not like most Americans haven't already decided.

I would pay for billboards like that.

What's more, I'm guessing it's fairly tame considering the birther stuff, the muslim BS, and, hell, pick any other batshit crazy attack they've done on Obama.

At least my idea is attacking Romneys IDEAS and policies, and not just whether he looks a bit too suntanned for my liking.

I did however read of a cunning campaign where porn sites were putting Romney banner ads up, so porn viewers knew that he wanted to ban porn in the US, I'd suggest 'Romney killed my boner' is quite the statement to run on.

Not G. Ivingname:

Right from the Obama campaign. You can ask your friends and family to give to the Obama presidency campaign in lieu of a gift.

So what?

I've been to weddings or had birthdays to buy presents for where the potential recipient has asked me to donate to charity instead.

Someone who would get a gift has decided instead to tell the potential gift-giver to instead just pack the money off to an electoral campaign. If that's what makes them happier, that's up to them. If as the gift-giver you don't want to support Obama, then give them a gift as normal.

Imperator_DK:
There's something undignified about a head of state asking this of people, but money does talk in US politics, and it's all voluntary. So fine by me, let them beg money however they want.

It may seem slightly undignified, but he's kind of stuck doing it if he wants to compete dollar for dollar with Romney. The man's been to more fundraisers recently than any previous president and he's still behind in donations because the super rich can pretty much give whatever they want to Romney and his superpacs. It's a fucked up system badly in need of some reform if the playing field is to be leveled.

Vivi22:
It's a fucked up system badly in need of some reform if the playing field is to be leveled.

That's the problem, though, it isn't to be levelled, that's not where the interest is going. Politicians are utterly dependent on the flow of money and unless there were a sizeable amount of them willing to stand up against this system, nothing will change. And Obama is certainly not one of those that would rock the boat as he as demonstrated over the last several years.

Skeleon:
That's the problem, though, it isn't to be levelled, that's not where the interest is going. Politicians are utterly dependent on the flow of money and unless there were a sizeable amount of them willing to stand up against this system, nothing will change. And Obama is certainly not one of those that would rock the boat as he as demonstrated over the last several years.

Oh I absolutely agree that there's a big difference between what should happen and what actually will. Should there be limits on donations and campaign spending to prevent one getting a clear advantage? Yes. Will it ever happen? Not so long as you have the people benefiting from those donations and spending making the rules.

SenseOfTumour:
I could save Obama a fuckton of money.

A range of billboard in each state, no fancy designs...

'Gays - Romney hates you and wants no-one to marry you'
'Women - Romney hates your vagina but wants to marry you'
'Men - Romney hates you so much that when you're married, he wants to take away your pornos'

Seriously tho, it blows my fucking MIND the sheer amount of money, AND the length of time spent campaigning for the election over there.

Would it kill to have a law that says no campaigning til a month before the elections? That'd save about $50 billion dollars right?

It's not like most Americans haven't already decided.

I'd rather we just do publicly financed election campaigns to keep the blood money out and give the lesser parties a fighting chance. Ha ha.

Rustlin' Jimmies:

SenseOfTumour:
I could save Obama a fuckton of money.

A range of billboard in each state, no fancy designs...

'Gays - Romney hates you and wants no-one to marry you'
'Women - Romney hates your vagina but wants to marry you'
'Men - Romney hates you so much that when you're married, he wants to take away your pornos'

Seriously tho, it blows my fucking MIND the sheer amount of money, AND the length of time spent campaigning for the election over there.

Would it kill to have a law that says no campaigning til a month before the elections? That'd save about $50 billion dollars right?

It's not like most Americans haven't already decided.

I'd rather we just do publicly financed election campaigns to keep the blood money out and give the lesser parties a fighting chance. Ha ha.

I've suggested that a few times in previous threads and it always gets shot down, because 'big government' is apparently FAR worse than massive levels of corruption and people working for corporations instead of voters.

Vivi22:
...
It may seem slightly undignified, but he's kind of stuck doing it if he wants to compete dollar for dollar with Romney. The man's been to more fundraisers recently than any previous president and he's still behind in donations because the super rich can pretty much give whatever they want to Romney and his superpacs. It's a fucked up system badly in need of some reform if the playing field is to be leveled.

There's no way to do so without trampling individual freedom of expression underfoot though.

While the official campaigns of the candidates can be regulated, the right to free speech of each individual citizen/private political organization is - and should be - absolute. It's unthinkable that the government be allowed to de facto censor political statements once some economic quota - established to aid a particular side and hinder another - have run out.

There's certain structural problems associated with this, but in any democracy it's ultimately the responsibility of the people to enlighten themselves sufficiently about all available candidates, and not just the ones they happen to see the most in expensive TV commercials. If they will not expend the effort needed to uphold a proper democracy, then they can hardly expect anyone else to do it for them.

Imperator_DK:
There's no way to do so without trampling individual freedom of expression underfoot though.

While the official campaigns of the candidates can be regulated, the right to free speech of each individual citizen/private political organization is - and should be - absolute. It's unthinkable that the government be allowed to de facto censor political statements once some economic quota - established to aid a particular side and hinder another - have run out.

There's certain structural problems associated with this, but in any democracy it's ultimately the responsibility of the people to enlighten themselves sufficiently about all available candidates, and not just the ones they happen to see the most in expensive TV commercials. If they will not expend the effort needed to uphold a proper democracy, then they can hardly expect anyone else to do it for them.

You seem to assume that limiting campaign donations would limit speech which is not what I'm arguing to do. I have no real issue with individuals going out and buying ads for politicians they support, particularly if they aren't being told what to say by the political campaign. Limiting campaign contributions would not stop that. I do have a problem with seemingly limitless direct funding for candidates which favours the rich being able to provide more support for candidates than the less well off. The system already gives far more power to the wealthy than to the poor. Why should campaign funding exacerbate this inequity and allow the wealthy to buy influence the rest of us will never have? That's a subversion of the democratic process because their vote no longer counts as much as anyone elses as it is supposed to. Limiting direct contributions to candidates from a sole contributor doesn't censor politicians or political messages. It may mean they have to get a bit more creative in getting their message out there, but in an age of instant and cheap communication, they aren't being silenced if their advertising budget goes from a billion dollars to several hundred million.

Vivi22:
...
You seem to assume that limiting campaign donations would limit speech which is not what I'm arguing to do. I have no real issue with individuals going out and buying ads for politicians they support, particularly if they aren't being told what to say by the political campaign. Limiting campaign contributions would not stop that.

That's pretty much what a Superpac is, at least formally: A bunch of private individuals banding together in a private organization, which then buy ads promoting a candidate of their choice. How close their ties are to said candidate is is debatable, and should probably be subjected to closer scrutiny, but it'd seem you have no real issue with the concept of superpacs then.

I do have a problem with seemingly limitless direct funding for candidates which favours the rich being able to provide more support for candidates than the less well off. The system already gives far more power to the wealthy than to the poor. Why should campaign funding exacerbate this inequity and allow the wealthy to buy influence the rest of us will never have? That's a subversion of the democratic process because their vote no longer counts as much as anyone elses as it is supposed to. Limiting direct contributions to candidates from a sole contributor doesn't censor politicians or political messages. It may mean they have to get a bit more creative in getting their message out there, but in an age of instant and cheap communication, they aren't being silenced if their advertising budget goes from a billion dollars to several hundred million.

Well, while I for one would consider it the responsibility of the voters to educate themselves on the election and its participants - using the easy information access of the digital era - so that they won't be "bought" so easily, I reluctantly accept such restrictions on the public figures themselves which are running for office. They are part of the state, and the state can regulate itself.

They don't matter much when every individual/business/organization can simply start up its own private unlimited campaign in favour of them though. All the public limitations will then do is to push campaigning away from the publicly funded system, onto the unrestricted private parties. With all the lack of transparency/control, and potential for more extreme/dirty messages now that the candidate is disassociated from the campaign, that entail.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked