Reply
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Money in the election

One thing that has been remarkably untalked about in the press this year is the effect of money in the Presidential election.

 

We all, I hope, remember that during his primary campaign Obama promised absolutely that if he won the nomination he would accept federal funding and the financial limits that go with it, but that when he realized that he could raise more money than the federal funding limits would allow he tossed that promise in the trash.  Of course, the not-liberal (according to Jon :smileyhappy: ) media hasn't mentioned that.  

 

He is now raising what are totally unprecedented amounts of money, according to most reports about twice what McCain is raising.  It's becoming clear that at least some of that money is illegal, some from multiple donations which individually are under the reporting limit but cumulatively in some cases far exceed the legal limits for individuals donating, and some from illegal foreign donations.  

 

The New York Times this morning has an article on how Obama is planning to use his huge money advantage in battleground states.  But the gist of the story is only on the process he is developing for using this money, and not a word on whether this unprecedented monetary advantage unfairly distorts the election process.  

 

And we all presumably know that he is buying up half-hour segments in prime time on the major networks, something that no candidate accepting federal funding would ever have the money to be able to do.

 

Is this election going to be a bought election, going not to the best candidate but to the best fundraiser?  Isn't this a question that the media should be asking on our behalf?  If it were a Republican raising such huge sums and a Democrat being outspend for the election, don't you think the major media would be on the story?  (Jon probably doesn't, since he doesn't believe in media bias, but the rest of us are more likely to.)   Isn't the silence this year about the destruction of the federal financing system by one who had promised to comply with it deafening?  Isn't the absence of any concern about extent to which money may be corrupting the election process notable?

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Scribe
debbook
Posts: 1,823
Registered: ‎05-03-2008
0 Kudos

Re: Money in the election

[ Edited ]

edited d/t respond to wrong post

Message Edited by debbook on 10-11-2008 03:39 PM
A room without books is like a body without a soul.~ Cicero...
"bookmagic418.blogspot.com
Frequent Contributor
Jon_B
Posts: 1,893
Registered: ‎07-15-2008
0 Kudos

Re: Money in the election

[ Edited ]

Just to clarify something, I never said that I "don't believe in media bais".  In fact I've said that I think individual members of the media and individual sources are indeed biased.  What I was saying was that conservative voices are in fact very easy to find in the mainstream media, and that many claims about what the  "mainstrea media doesn't cover" are false - I never once said that media bias "doesn't exist".

 

As to your general question - I'm rather confused as to why you think there is "media silence" on the issue of Obama forgoeing federal funding and raising huge amounts of money when the mainstream media is in fact covering it:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/us/politics/20obamacnd.html?hp

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/19/republicans-hammer-obama-for-sidestepping-public-funds/

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1014824,public061908.article

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/06/obama_forgoes_public_financing.html

 

I think calling this will be a "bought election" is a bit of a stretch though, since the election has yet to actually occur and there's no reason that the candidate who spent more money on ads is necessarily  going to be the winner.  Obama's and McCain's positions are very different and the votes are based primarily on those differences - not on the fact that one of them has spent more on advertising.  

 

 

 

Message Edited by Jon_B on 10-11-2008 03:26 PM
________________________________________

Need some help setting up your My B&N profile? Click here!

Looking for a particular book, but can't remember the title or author? Ask about it here!
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Money in the election


Jon_B wrote:

As to your general question - I'm rather confused as to why you think there is "media silence" on the issue of Obama forgoeing federal funding and raising huge amounts of money when the mainstream media is in fact covering it:



They covered it at the time. It was a one-time story.  Back four months ago.  But have you seen anything since then on the effect of that decision and his raising huge amounts of money, some of which is known to have been illegal, on the election?  Have you seen any stories since June which talked about his dishonesty in promising to limit spending when it was convenient to do so and reneging when it was more convenient to renege?  That should be an object lesson in his commitment to campaign promises, shouldn't it?   How many candidates break their campaign promises even before they're officially nominated, let alone elected?  Have you heard follow-up stories on whether the federal funding principle has been permanently destroyed by Obama?  

 

Look at how the media goes on and on and on about the firing of federal prosecutors.  Why?  Because the Democratically controlled congress is pushing it.

 

 I'm betting that the report on Palin isn't reported in just one issue and then dropped the way this story was.  But in the long run, which story is more important to the integrity and future of our democracy -- whether a governor used some political influence for personal reasons (heck, was there a single day Bill Clinton didn't do that?), or whether the concept of trying to reduce the influence of money on the Presidential election process by providing federal funding and imposing funding limits to provide an equal playing field has been smashed to bits?  

 

Which story matters more in the long run?  Which is getting more press?  

 

And why is that?   Hint:  One hurts Democrats, one hurts Republicans.  There.  That wasn't hard, was it? 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Frequent Contributor
Jon_B
Posts: 1,893
Registered: ‎07-15-2008
0 Kudos

Re: Money in the election


Everyman wrote:


They covered it at the time. It was a one-time story.  Back four months ago.  But have you seen anything since then on the effect of that decision and his raising huge amounts of money, some of which is known to have been illegal, on the election? 


 There's certainly been plenty of talk in the media about some of the money possibly being illegal:

 

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10062008/news/politics/barack_took_illegal_donations__gop_132272.htm

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/08/05/obama-camp-routed-out-illegal-donations-from-palestinians/

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmZkNDAwY2I0ZTNjNGNlYWRkNmUwZjRjYTg1ZGU0MWM

 

I don't think anyone can write about what effect his funding has had on the election since the election hasn't happened yet.   But there's certainly plenty of coverage regarding the allegations your mentioning.

 


Have you heard follow-up stories on whether the federal funding principle has been permanently destroyed by Obama?  


 

Of course not - this election has yet to occur, let alone future elections, so I have no idea how anyone could write an aritlce on whether or not the federal funding system had been "permanently destroyed" when we don't even know the effect the funding issue will have on this election.

 


Which story matters more in the long run?  Which is getting more press? 


Seeing as the story on the report on Palin broke just yesterday I think its rather a bit soon for claims about the media lingering on this issue longer than they did on Obama's funding issue. 

 

 

________________________________________

Need some help setting up your My B&N profile? Click here!

Looking for a particular book, but can't remember the title or author? Ask about it here!
Inspired Bibliophile
thewanderingjew
Posts: 2,247
Registered: ‎12-18-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Money in the election

why was such an important issue, "buying the election" only a one time story, even figuratively? that is an important question, n'est ce pas? why wasn't there an in depth coverage of this issue?

if one can't question or judge the relevance of the amount of money being spent on the election (although there have been precedents set in the past) because the election hasn't taken place, then aren't you effectively ruling out any scrutiny just as any criticisms of obama seem to be ruled out because they are immediately labeled as racist, if not by him than be people associated with him. he does nothing to effectively stop this because it has been to his advantage.
the democrats, with a complicit media, have stopped most possibly negative conversation about obama and anything he is involved with. it is a sad commentary on our election process if we can only determine it failed, after the election and make no attempt to stop the failure while it is in process. hmmm, it sounds like fannie mae and freddie mac have set an ugly precedent to allow corruption and deceit to continue until it causes a complete collapse in our system.

stealing an election with fraudulent votes was a rampant accusation with the bush elections. although it was disproved, it still persists. why is obama and his relationship to acorn so sacrosanct that it can't be fully discussed? he and/or his spokesmen says he has limited involvement and everyone believes it and that pretty much ends all investigation. this election will go down in history in more ways than one.

twj


Jon_B wrote:

Everyman wrote:


They covered it at the time. It was a one-time storyBack four months agoBut have you seen anything since then on the effect of that decision and his raising huge amounts of money, some of which is known to have been illegal, on the election


 There's certainly been plenty of talk in the media about some of the money possibly being illegal:

 

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10062008/news/politics/barack_took_illegal_donations__gop_132272.htm

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/08/05/obama-camp-routed-out-illegal-donations-from-palestinians/

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmZkNDAwY2I0ZTNjNGNlYWRkNmUwZjRjYTg1ZGU0MWM

 

I don't think anyone can write about what effect his funding has had on the election since the election hasn't happened yet.   But there's certainly plenty of coverage regarding the allegations your mentioning.

 


Have you heard follow-up stories on whether the federal funding principle has been permanently destroyed by Obama?  


 

Of course not - this election has yet to occur, let alone future elections, so I have no idea how anyone could write an aritlce on whether or not the federal funding system had been "permanently destroyed" when we don't even know the effect the funding issue will have on this election.

 


Which story matters more in the long runWhich is getting more press


Seeing as the story on the report on Palin broke just yesterday I think its rather a bit soon for claims about the media lingering on this issue longer than they did on Obama's funding issue

 

 


 

 

Distinguished Bibliophile
KathyS
Posts: 6,893
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Two faced election!

[ Edited ]

Trying to stay unbiased, as for myself: 

 

Just before the last Pres. debate, ALL I saw on TV was advertisements for McCain.   Every channel I turned to!  There was one right after the other, saying the usual derogatory remarks, that are at best, half truths.  You would think, at the least, that these people who we have up for election, whether Rep. or Dem., could  get their facts straight, or show us, the people, that they have responsible people working for them  that could get their facts straight!  Do I want anyone running my government who thinks telling lies is the only way they can achieve something?  Of course not!  This is my biggest gripe.  Why do you think so many people distrust a politician?   It's obvious.  Again, is it necessary to destroy someone, to make yourself look the better "man, and that includes Palin"....It's all bologna!

 

Why, if anyone thinks the Rep. party is not getting a fair amount of publicity, do we see so many of these "expensive" advertisements from them?  As I see it, it's making them look deceitful, and desperate.  Now McCain is saying what a wonderful person Obama is....getting boos from his followers, in the process.  What's that all about?  First he convinces his party that he's the aggressive good guy, now he has second thoughts?  What's the truth to any of what is said?  It frustrates me to no end to see what we think is the truth in people, and then, in truth, being outright two faced.  Do any of these people know how to tell the truth, or do they even know what it means, now?  I'm beginning to wonder if the media is even aware.  It's all deluded, if you ask me.

Message Edited by KathyS on 10-11-2008 08:25 PM
Inspired Bibliophile
thewanderingjew
Posts: 2,247
Registered: ‎12-18-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Two faced election!

[ Edited ]

no disrespect intended, but what are you watching? mc cain has far less money than obama and has far less ad spots. actually, in the last few weeks, mc cain has gotten very little coverage except for negative coverage, by the so called "unbiased" media, because of the financial crisisobama may have had fewer ad spots because he has enough positive coverage on all of the cable stations and with the mainstream media at no cost. because he is ahead he is just laying low trying not to make any mistakes.
obama has the likes of oprah raising money for him. she is behaving like a hypocrite with her comments about not wanting to have palin on her tv show because she doesn't want to inject politics into it. she is branded. she is her tv show and campaigning for obama is compromising her character and showing her bias. he has streisand running $2300 a plate fundraisers for him in these terrible times. he opted out of federal financing although he said he would accept it because he is a flip flopper. have you checked out what you are referring to as half truths? obama's associations are suspect and that is not a half truth. he has shown poor judgment in his selection of friends except of course if you assume he chose them for his own political advantage rather than their character.
wouldn't it be nice if we would see obama stand up and praise mc cain without following it with a sneer and a sarcastic innuendo about his age? it seems like his age might be a far lesser problem than associations with known dishonorable people. obama hides behind moveon.org, hollywood, 527's, stars, athletes and rap stars who present the negative campaign for him and so he gets a passhe seems to have the power to purge the negative videos from utube about his obama youth which raise goosebumps on the arms of many people. check out this utube video from howard stern unless it too gets purged. personally, i don't like stern and i don't like his language but these interviews are very enlightening about the voting public and their reasons for selecting a candidate. i was appalled at the ignorance of the voting public.
this is an ugly election on both sides but one side has more money and may succeed in buying the presidency. who is this man we are about to put in the white house? give me a reason to vote for him. so far all i hear is obama saying what he thinks his audience wants to hear, regardless of what he told the previous audience. case in point: his comments when he was in israel vs his comments when addressing an arab audience.

twj


KathyS wrote:
Trying to stay unbiased, as for myself:
Just before the last Pres. debate, ALL I saw on TV was advertisements for McCain.   Every channel I turned to!  There was one right after the other, saying the usual derogatory remarks, that are at best, half truths....(edited by twj)
...Why, if anyone thinks the Rep. party is not getting a fair amount of publicity, do we see so many of these "expensive" advertisements from them?... (edited by twj)
Message Edited by KathyS on 10-11-2008 08:25 PM

 

Message Edited by thewanderingjew on 10-12-2008 12:24 AM
Inspired Correspondent
Maria_H
Posts: 791
Registered: ‎07-19-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Two faced election!

Sorry, TWJ, but are you referring to Barack Obama in this statement?

 

Has it already been decided that he will be the next inhabitant of the White House?

 

The election is still on Tuesday, November 4th, correct? 

 


thewanderingjew wrote:

who is this man we are about to put in the white house? give me a reason to vote for him.


 

 



Looking for a discussion? Find a Book Club for all your interests!


Inspired Correspondent
Librarian
Posts: 483
Registered: ‎01-27-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Money in the election

  Imagine what all this money spent on campaigns and wars could do, if it could be spent to alleviate all the third world suffering and all the ills here at home.. I am still agonizing over who would do the lesser harm as president.

Librarian

Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Money in the election

I am still agonizing over who would do the lesser harm as president.

 

Isn't it sad that so many of us have to feel this way about the election?

 

It's been a long time since I actually felt enthusiastic about a Presidential candidate, where I could think I was voting for somebody who would really make life better for all Americans, rather than voting for the lesser of two evils, for, as you say the candidate who would do the least harm. 

 

I have decided that this is an inevitable consequence of what our electoral process has become.  Basically, we have created a system where nobody who has the intelligence, wisdom, and integrity to be President is willing to put up with the process necessary to win the nomination and office.   The only people who will seek the office are those who want to tell everybody else how to run their lives. That's not what I'm looking for in a president.  But it's all I get.  

 


Librarian wrote:

  Imagine what all this money spent on campaigns and wars could do, if it could be spent to alleviate all the third world suffering and all the ills here at home.. I am still agonizing over who would do the lesser harm as president.

Librarian


 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Melissa_W
Posts: 4,123
Topics: 516
Kudos: 1,083
Blog Posts: 3
Ideas: 15
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Money in the election

Is it amazing that people are willing to commit a tremendous amount of money to political campaigns yet can't be bothered to donate so that children have shoes and school supplies (insert your particular cause here).


Librarian wrote:

  Imagine what all this money spent on campaigns and wars could do, if it could be spent to alleviate all the third world suffering and all the ills here at home.. I


 

Melissa W.
I read and knit and dance. Compulsively feel yarn. Consume books. Darn tights. Drink too much caffiene. All that good stuff.
balletbookworm.blogspot.com
Inspired Bibliophile
thewanderingjew
Posts: 2,247
Registered: ‎12-18-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Money in the election

what is more amazing to me is how little money some people with money donate to anything! some of the money that went into the political coffers could also have gone into helping members of our own families who are in need, especially now. what happened to the concept of taking care of your own? how many of us extend a hand to a relative in need rather than turning them out to deal with the government handouts (entitlements sometimes create more problems then they solve).
there was a time when people would do anything to remain independent and they resisted government assistance. there was also shame associated with that kind of thing, perhaps unjustly, because sometimes there was no other way. there seems to be a general lack of kindness in today's society towards those in need and they are viewed as failures who have brought on their own disasters. is that just a convenient excuse so we don't have to feel the guilt we should, when we walk on by, unaffected by the suffering of others?
as an interesting aside, my husband was once (horrors) a ceo. we used to go to some industry meetings and the women's activities would center around shopping. instead of doing mindless things, i suggested we start a charity. it was a wonderful experience for all of us. we had our first fund raiser and i discovered that the proper papers were never filed by the organization because they wanted to be able to use some of the funds we raised, rather than give it all to charity. needless to say, i dissolved the charity. why is there always someone who manages to sink to the lowest level possible thwarting even the highest ideals?

pedsphleb wrote:

Is it amazing that people are willing to commit a tremendous amount of money to political campaigns yet can't be bothered to donate so that children have shoes and school supplies (insert your particular cause here).


Librarian wrote:

  Imagine what all this money spent on campaigns and wars could do, if it could be spent to alleviate all the third world suffering and all the ills here at home.. I