RNC turns Obama’s $150-million month into attack

posted at 10:33 am on October 21, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Can the Republicans turn Barack Obama’s massive fundraising effort into a negative?  They’re certainly going to try.  Yesterday, the RNC launched a new website that lists all of the donors who gave less than $200 since John McCain officially became the GOP nominee for President, when he ended his own fundraising to accept public financing.  Obama, who reneged on his promise to use public financing, refuses to release donor information on donations under the same level.  ABC’s Jake Tapper takes notice:

In an attempt at political jujitsu (soon to enter the Hall of Verboten Clichés — but not yet), the  McCain campaign and the RNC have been attempting to put Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., on the defensive about his record-shattering fundraising, which includes an unprecedented $150 million September.

Obama, of course, opted out of public financing despite an earlier pledge to do so, an issue of real contention for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who (rightly) feels it’s a broken promise Obama hasn’t gotten much heat for from either the media or government reform proponents.

More recently, Republicans have been pointing out that Obama does not disclose the names of donors who contribute less than $200 to his campaign. He is under no legal obligation to do so, but his failure to provide those names, it can certainly be argued, doesn’t live up to his pledges of transparency and openness. …

I myself haven’t heard a good reason as to why Obama is refusing to disclose the names of these donors, unlike the McCain campaign.

There really is no good reason not to reveal their donors.  If the RNC can do it with a website in the middle of a presidential campaign, then the Obama campaign certainly can as well.  Do they want to admit to a certain amount of incompetence at basic data management that will undermine their tech-savvy patina, especially after shooting themselves in the foot for making fun of John McCain’s inability to use e-mail?  I think not.

Politico’s Ben Smith offers one possible explanation:

The Obama camp hasn’t a terribly clear explanation of its refusal to go beyond the legal requirement, but there’s one straightforward political reason: Disclosing your small donors means that other Democrats can hit up your list. Keeping them secret enhances the power of Obama and his organization within Democratic politics.

That doesn’t make much sense.  The RNC’s site only lists first and last name and the amount of the donation, and no other contact information.  That won’t help any other candidates in building a donor list for themselves. Besides, isn’t the party leader supposed to help other candidates?

It looks more like Team Obama doesn’t want people perusing the massive numbers of donors with names like Qwerty Poiuy, Asdfgh Lkjh’;, and Zxcvb Mn09876 from the states of PO, ZX, and QW.  So much for openness and transparency.

Tags: , ,

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

There really is no good reason not to reveal their donors.

Well, there are two good reasons: 1. The same donor is using multiple hits to exceed the legal limits, and 2. The donor is not a US citizen. Already, we have seen Obama donors in both of these scenarios. To release the list would show just how many illegal donors Obama has.

Vashta.Nerada on October 21, 2008 at 10:37 AM

Hmmmm… wonder how much of the 150 million last month was in those “small” donations?

Enquiring minds want to know!

Romeo13 on October 21, 2008 at 10:38 AM

Why did Obama wait till over halfway thru Oct. to release Sept. numbers?

jp on October 21, 2008 at 10:39 AM

It’s about all they can do to counter Obama’s fundraising. Point out how he broke a promise on an important issue and can’t be trusted not to break promises (cough, cough, taxes) in the future. Also point out how so many of his donations seems to come from magical people and foreigners.

BadgerHawk on October 21, 2008 at 10:40 AM

I don’t know, it seems to me that McCain wouldn’t want to remind conservatives about his role in campaign finance reform. Obama is clearly doing unethical, probably illegal things but I don’t think its an effective attack.

At this point nothing is really an effective attack, unless Obama punts a baby or a puppy off a building on live TV I think we’re finished…

John_Locke on October 21, 2008 at 10:41 AM

Oh, yeah, I don’t have the cash, but we need to do an experiment…

Credit Cards can be set to varying standards as to the amount of information needed to verify…

Some are Number, Exp. date, name, and address…. and even the code on the back…

But you CAN set it as low as nothing but the card, and the Exp. Date… thus, if the Obama database does not keep track of the card numbers themselves (which I suspect), then you could use the same card, but put different names and addresses into the database… money would still go through, but the record would be falsified…. allowing you to funnel as much money as you wanted to the campaign.

Romeo13 on October 21, 2008 at 10:41 AM

I believe I heard some Osama Obama shill on the radio saying “most of” the $150 million came from those “small donors.”

An easy way to hide donations from overseas, George Soros piecing out his donation, and the fundraising efforts of various bundling ne’er-do-wells.

The Messiah’s response? Typical arrogant disdain for the law and morality.

I still think if he was seriously investigated, Obama would not be running for president, but would be hunting for a good criminal-defense attorney.

MrScribbler on October 21, 2008 at 10:45 AM

I think this is a dead end for McCain to try and use. It’s really something that Congress should be keeping tabs on anyway, not the guy who’s running against him.
What DOES Congress DO anyway?!

KMC1 on October 21, 2008 at 10:46 AM

If John McCain had these fund raising issues it would be front page news across the country and there would be hundreds of reporters digging for the truth.

TheBigOldDog on October 21, 2008 at 10:46 AM

unprecedented $150 million September

Stupid me. I thought we were in a recession, or depression, or something.

Brat on October 21, 2008 at 10:46 AM

Remember, he only has his own big infomercial because he’s already broken one promise…

ninjapirate on October 21, 2008 at 10:47 AM

need to force him to release his donor database, he should’ve stressed this point more in debate

jp on October 21, 2008 at 10:48 AM

It looks more like Team Obama doesn’t want people perusing the massive numbers of donors with names like Qwerty Poiuy, Asdfgh Lkjh’;, and Zxcvb Mn09876 from the states of PO, ZX, and QW. So much for openness and transparency.

There is only so many times you can enter “Soros”.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 21, 2008 at 10:48 AM

Disclosing your small donors means that other Democrats can hit up your list. Keeping them secret enhances the power of Obama and his organization within Democratic politics.

Kinda reflects on his community organizing background, doesn’t it?

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 21, 2008 at 10:49 AM

Obama won’t put out his medical records or college records, why would he volunteer donor records?

ctmom on October 21, 2008 at 10:49 AM

I have been a campaign Treasurer, and IMHO it’s much easier to just disclose them than not.

The under-$200′s still have to be tracked, because the donations are cumulative. So, if I donate $199, then another $199, the campaign records would absolutely show that I donated $398. If I then donated $2,300, I should get a refund of $398 ASAP.

There is software out there to track this stuff using every possible cross-check you can think of.

But you’ll probably never see my name in a national level campaign, because my books were honest.

angelat0763 on October 21, 2008 at 10:49 AM

It looks more like Team Obama doesn’t want people perusing the massive numbers of donors with names like Qwerty Poiuy, Asdfgh Lkjh’;, and Zxcvb Mn09876 from the states of PO, ZX, and QW. So much for openness and transparency.

and those Overseas in countries like Syria

Remember the Palestinians running a Phone Bank for Obama out of Hamas controlled Gaza??? Al-Jazzera only network that ran that story i beleive…Hello Fox news, are you there???/

jp on October 21, 2008 at 10:49 AM

Illegal Aliens.

Terrorists donations.

Illegal Aliens.

Terrorists donations.

madmonkphotog on October 21, 2008 at 10:50 AM

Illegal Aliens.

Terrorists donations.

Illegal Aliens.

Terrorists donations.

Russian/KGB donations

Chavez Donations

NoKo donations

Iranian Donations

Chinese Donations

madmonkphotog on October 21, 2008 at 10:50 AM

fixed

jp on October 21, 2008 at 10:51 AM

Will this nation ever know how much money came from George Soros after Obama is elected? Did the $25, $50, and $100 dollar donors come from individuals or was it REDISTRIBUTED like Obama’s “spread the wealth” plan?

Rovin on October 21, 2008 at 10:51 AM

Small unmarked bills please. The internet is no differant.

Powell will regret signing on to this clown.

johnnyU on October 21, 2008 at 10:51 AM

George Soros

joeswampy on October 21, 2008 at 10:52 AM

Call centers in Syria, staffed with hordes of Hamas kooks are churning out thousands of $200 donations on the phone and internet 24 x 7.

Alden Pyle on October 21, 2008 at 10:52 AM

Here are Obama’s top contibutors:

Gwen Albertson
Edwin Majors
Oscar Meyer
Ricky Jameson
Gerald Thomas
Emil Brandt
Steven LaBelle
Orenthal Simpson
Roberta Kilpatrick
Orlando Gonzales
Sherri Mason

Vic on October 21, 2008 at 10:52 AM

Gaza’s Hamas Obama Headquarters:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21YF7ggCG6g

a stretch to think some money isn’t coming from these thugs/terrorist???

I think not…..hello American Media? Fox News? Anyone home?

jp on October 21, 2008 at 10:52 AM

If all these small donations really are coming from average Americans then it would suggest that Dear Leader Obamassiah has an overwhelming support from middle America. Yet the poll numbers do not show such a 10-20 point lead. That tells me there is something Princess Goldfishy about these donations.

rbj on October 21, 2008 at 10:54 AM

It was Obama and Paul, both useful idiots toting our enemies vision for our Foreign Policy, who received the most online donations from overseas and made it possible for them to do so from addresses like Syria and “Occupied Palestine”

jp on October 21, 2008 at 10:54 AM

Disclosing your small donors means that other Democrats can hit up your list. Keeping them secret enhances the power of Obama and his organization within Democratic politics.

Do you really need an answer?

To disenfranchise Republican voters into thinking that the election is over. It isn’t.

We need to show the clueless tool that the election cannot be purchased (again).

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 21, 2008 at 10:54 AM

The Obama camp hasn’t a terribly clear explanation of its refusal to go beyond the legal requirement, but there’s one straightforward political reason: Disclosing your small donors means that other Democrats can hit up your list. Keeping them secret enhances the power of Obama and his organization within Democratic politics.

That doesn’t make much sense.

Yes it does, Ed, because they are a liberal tool!!

Is that a concept that hasn’t entered into your lexicon, and if not, WHY NOT?!

Mcguyver on October 21, 2008 at 10:54 AM

What DOES Congress DO anyway?!

I’ll field this one:
1. Blocks offshore oil drilling
2. Investigates “offensive” lyrics in rap music
3. Investigates cheaters in baseball
4. Earmarks on ridiculously stupid bailout bills
5. Lies, cheats, steals and screws over the people they claim to represent.

Good enough?

mjk on October 21, 2008 at 10:54 AM

Obama’s Economic Plan:

Making Work Pay = Tax Effort

maverick muse on October 21, 2008 at 10:55 AM

And the answer to where Obama’s money is coming from. I would think it begins with “I” and ends with “Ran”. But that may be racist. I forget.

mjk on October 21, 2008 at 10:55 AM

If the RNC can do it with a website in the middle of a presidential campaign, then the Obama campaign certainly can as well.

But this is the campaign that cannot keep its plane from stinking so badly it offends their own adoring press.

Elizabetty on October 21, 2008 at 10:55 AM

Obama doesn’t have to release the information and there’s nothing McCain can do about it, so he’s going to try to create some mud out of it instead.

How desperate.

Dave Rywall on October 21, 2008 at 10:56 AM

Now that he’s become more successful why doesn’t he make sure that everybody who’s behind him, that they’ve got a chance at success, too. When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody, right?

trubble on October 21, 2008 at 10:57 AM

Obama doesn’t have to release the information and there’s nothing McCain can do about it, so he’s going to try to create some mud out of it instead.

How desperate.

Dave Rywall on October 21, 2008 at 10:56 AM

So, how’s it feel to be a Useful Idiot for insane idiots like the fruitcakes that run Iran?

jp on October 21, 2008 at 10:57 AM

Isn’t foreign contributions – uh – ILLEGAL?

Why isn’t this a legitimate question? I’ve been ranting about it ever since I heard how much money he supposidely raised in September. Does not pass the smell test.

tru2tx on October 21, 2008 at 10:59 AM

So, how’s it feel to be a Useful Idiot for insane idiots like the fruitcakes that run Iran?

jp on October 21, 2008 at 10:57 AM
———
Hey, you know what? An idiot would solicit the Russian UN envoy for a 5000$ political contribution. That’s what an idiot would do. Now who just did that…..Oh, right. McCain did.

Dave Rywall on October 21, 2008 at 10:59 AM

Yeap my names on that database. Would have been mor eif McCain attacked Obama on fannie mae and freddie mac. But the RNC database is correct and working perfectly as far as my name goes.

unseen on October 21, 2008 at 11:01 AM

Whatever happened to Hills crazy, naked kook on the train?

Domino on October 21, 2008 at 11:01 AM

If Obama were to go tit-for-tat, to put up a site of his own, he would he need a currency converter.

What is the exchange rate between the US Dollar and the Iranian Rial?

jeff_from_mpls on October 21, 2008 at 11:01 AM

Obama doesn’t have to release the information and there’s nothing McCain can do about it, so he’s going to try to create some mud out of it instead.

How desperate.

By your logic, Obama also doesn’t have to release/reveal:
1. The Birth Certificate
2. College Transcripts
3. Friendships with terrorists and bigots
4. Papers from Harvard and Columbia
5. Donations to the Bigot church
6. Where the money for the garden went
7. Donations from whomever
8. His connections to ACORN and their voter fraud crap

But Joe the Plumber, my God, if he doesn’t tell us where he bought his plunger, the media will tell us that he’s worse than Hitler.

Interesting.

mjk on October 21, 2008 at 11:02 AM

Obama spent over half a billion dollars to purchase us as his slaves.

Obama has yet to quit buying his election with illegitimate funds, PARTICULARLY MONEY FROM ABROAD!

“Yes We Can” Obama says he can buy himself the Presidency and our slavery all in one fell swoop. “Spread the Wealth” or trickle up poverty (Savage) doesn’t enable anyone EXCEPT THE UBER-WEALTHY. And Obama The Sadist uses the lower economic class to accomplish the battle for his highest economic class overlord elitists.

NO YOU CAN’T BUY ME, OBAMA. I WILL NOT SERVE YOU OR MARX.

maverick muse on October 21, 2008 at 11:02 AM

By your logic, Obama also doesn’t have to release/reveal:
1. The Birth Certificate
2. College Transcripts
3. Friendships with terrorists and bigots
4. Papers from Harvard and Columbia
5. Donations to the Bigot church
6. Where the money for the garden went
7. Donations from whomever
8. His connections to ACORN and their voter fraud crap

But Joe the Plumber, my God, if he doesn’t tell us where he bought his plunger, the media will tell us that he’s worse than Hitler.

Interesting.

mjk on October 21, 2008 at 11:02 AM
——-
That’s not my logic. That’s yours. Roll it up and smoke it all you want. I could give a shit.

Dave Rywall on October 21, 2008 at 11:03 AM

Ahhh, leave it to Ben to support Barack.

drjohn on October 21, 2008 at 11:03 AM

ONE HUNDRED-FIFTY MILLION FROM THE WORLD-WIDE INTERNET

Nice to see that Obama’s found the highest bidder when he put out his international message: PRESIDENTIAL OFFICE FOR SALE—SOCIALIST DOLLARS WELCOME

Rovin on October 21, 2008 at 11:05 AM

Here’s the REAL top ten donors to Obama:

1. George Soros
2. George Soros
3. George Soros
4. George Soros
5. George Soros
6. George Soros
7. George Soros
8. George Soros
9. George Soros
10.George Soros

FiveWays on October 21, 2008 at 11:05 AM

Isn’t foreign contributions – uh – ILLEGAL?

Why isn’t this a legitimate question? I’ve been ranting about it ever since I heard how much money he supposidely raised in September. Does not pass the smell test.

tru2tx on October 21, 2008 at 10:59 AM

the Internet and the under 200 looophole plus how easy it is to commit fraud(differnet bogus names) has made this possible. Something needs to be done, won’t be though.

Imagine if the Soviets had been able to get away with donating funds to campaigns of the Democrats during 80′s…

jp on October 21, 2008 at 11:06 AM

the hilarious thing is Obama is the one who claims to be for “Transparency” in our Govt., which this exposes him to be one huge Liar about.

The guy is a crook, wolf in sheeps clothing…

jp on October 21, 2008 at 11:06 AM

I will never ever recognize Obama as a legitimate President.

EVER.

FiveWays on October 21, 2008 at 11:06 AM

Obama is sendng out two and three emails a week to supporters, and all of them have a fundraising pitch in them with a “donate” button. I don’t believe they have set up their system to actually collect the names, addresses, and employers of all these people who are giving them $25 or $50 on a credit card every time they get an email. I suspect all of these go into a bucket that is separate from the bucket where they collect the bigger donations. Of course, this means they are not tracking whether any of these small donors exceed the total $2300 limit. And they know that if they get caught on this it won’t be until after the election.

It’s clever, and effective, and probably completely illegal. And they are going to get away with it. Because the media and the general public are not going to buy Republicans as campaign finance watchdogs.

McCain had a good line in the debate and some speeches, connecting this with Watergate. That still resonated wth a lot of Boomer voters and should be hammered until Election Day.

rockmom on October 21, 2008 at 11:06 AM

The problem with Der Spiegel and/or socialist Europe:

Germany’s vindictive spirit to buy America doesn’t sell.

maverick muse on October 21, 2008 at 11:07 AM

I guess the Presidency of the United States is now available for purchase from anonymous foreign bidders.

Great!

mylegsareswollen on October 21, 2008 at 11:07 AM

Hamas is basically as bad as Al-Qaeda, they support Obama and are running Phone banks for the guy…its crazy what is going on.

jp on October 21, 2008 at 11:07 AM

SOCIALIST DOLLARS WELCOME

Rovin on October 21, 2008 at 11:05 AM
—–
Yeah! And speaking of DIRTY SOCIALISM, Alaska is into “spreading the wealth around”, the goddamn socialists! They tax the oil companies’ windfall profits and dish out CASH to Alaskan citizens! OUTRAGEOUS!

Dave Rywall on October 21, 2008 at 11:08 AM

I wonder if the donors of the $150 million are gonna feel like crap when Congress is swept back to the GOP in 2010.

Foreigners simply don’t understand the American psyche.

We’re suckers for lots of crazy stuff.

But once we get that we’ve been punked, we slap back hard. And we tend to hold a grudge. I wouldn’t want to be a lib in a post-2010 world.

jeff_from_mpls on October 21, 2008 at 11:09 AM

It’s clever, and effective, and probably completely illegal. And they are going to get away with it. Because the media and the general public are not going to buy Republicans as campaign finance watchdogs.

McCain had a good line in the debate and some speeches, connecting this with Watergate. That still resonated wth a lot of Boomer voters and should be hammered until Election Day.

rockmom on October 21, 2008 at 11:06 AM

If McCain wins, what happens though with all these illegalities when they come out? atleast Obama would be finished with national politics i hope

jp on October 21, 2008 at 11:09 AM

Powell will regret signing on to this clown.

johnnyU on October 21, 2008 at 10:51 AM

NO. He. Won’t!!

To the contrary, he is just really, really, really, really pissed that he didn’t get chosen as VP.

I can just see Po-well and his wife discussing this in private about how he would make a great VP pick for Obama in order to make it the centrist ticket and balance Obama’s foreign policy non-experience, besides who wouldn’t vote for an all black ticket?

Well… except maybe for Pennsylvania.
But that is a discussion for another day.
Oh…. it has already been covered?

Well alrighty then… my bad.

Mcguyver on October 21, 2008 at 11:09 AM

Yeah! And speaking of DIRTY SOCIALISM, Alaska is into “spreading the wealth around”, the goddamn socialists! They tax the oil companies’ windfall profits and dish out CASH to Alaskan citizens! OUTRAGEOUS!

Dave Rywall on October 21, 2008 at 11:08 AM

Alaska never did a ‘windfall profits tax’, they did a Severance Tax which is legit and not immoral like a ‘windfall profits tax’

jp on October 21, 2008 at 11:10 AM

Socialists abroad have lost leadership in Germany, Italy and France, Canada and Colombia.

So they focus all of their intent upon the single most valuable PRIZE: USA.

Defeat Socialism by voting Democrats into the minority.

maverick muse on October 21, 2008 at 11:10 AM

Does anybody know how much it cost Osamabama to raise 150 mil$?

davidk on October 21, 2008 at 11:10 AM

Tapper:
I myself haven’t heard a good reason as to why Obama is refusing to disclose the names of these donors, unlike the McCain campaign.

Because they’re running a criminal enterprise, that’s why.

CP on October 21, 2008 at 11:11 AM

Too bad whoever amended the campaign finance laws were too incompetent to do something about this, eh?

Now who co-sponsored that? That jackass Feingold and…hmm who was the other guy? Oh right – McCain.

Damn. he made his bed and does not like lying in it.

Dave Rywall on October 21, 2008 at 11:11 AM

Hamas is basically as bad as Al-Qaeda, they support Obama and are running Phone banks for the guy…its crazy what is going on.
jp on October 21, 2008 at 11:07 AM

Okay, explain this to me like I am a five year old:

ISN’T THAT ILLEGAL and where is the FBI, Homeland Security, the FEC, or anyone – if that’s what is really going on??

It just gives me a migraine to think this is happening right out in the open and nobody gives a flip.

tru2tx on October 21, 2008 at 11:12 AM

If he’s getting these donations from the internet, how much of that money comes from overseas? Inquiring minds want to know!

Nethicus on October 21, 2008 at 11:12 AM

Biden’s seen the writing on the wall. He’s going to be taken out permanently once Obama is elected.

maverick muse on October 21, 2008 at 11:12 AM

There is software out there to track this stuff using every possible cross-check you can think of.
angelat0763 on October 21, 2008 at 10:49 AM

Uhh… Yeah, I wonder why no one in the media picks up on the obvious. The technology, I’m sure, is available to keep track of anything they want.
But I guess that isn’t in the One’s budget. Have to save $$ for that infomercial.

Badger40 on October 21, 2008 at 11:12 AM

Alaska never did a ‘windfall profits tax’, they did a Severance Tax which is legit and not immoral like a ‘windfall profits tax’

jp on October 21, 2008 at 11:10 AM
———-

Wrong.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008103325_alaskatax07.html

“Over the opposition of oil companies, Republican Gov. Sarah Palin and Alaska’s Legislature last year approved a major increase in taxes on the oil industry — a step that has generated stunning new wealth for the state as oil prices soared.”

“Palin’s administration last week gained legislative approval for a special $1,200 payment to every Alaskan to help cope with gas prices, which are among the highest in the country.

That check will come on top of the annual dividend of about $2,000 that each resident could receive this year from an oil-wealth savings account.”

OUCH THIS MUST HURT YOU VERY MUCH.
Palin the dirty socialist.

Bye bye now.

Dave Rywall on October 21, 2008 at 11:13 AM

When your charging peoples VISA’s without their permission, can’t say that it surprises me.

PappaMac on October 21, 2008 at 11:14 AM

If Obama were to go tit-for-tat, to put up a site of his own, he would he need a currency converter.

What is the exchange rate between the US Dollar and the Iranian Rial?

jeff_from_mpls on October 21, 2008 at 11:01 AM

How much does it cost for the Terrorist head of government to buy a meeting with the Whitehouse with not pre-conditions and lots of cameras?

Hey Chavez–How many times did you have to push that donate button in your email to reach that $5,000,000 donation anyway? I’m too lazy to divide $5mil by $200.

petunia on October 21, 2008 at 11:15 AM

Since Obama is all about spreading the wealth and creating fairness, how can he not be pummeled for opting out of public financing? He should be spreading someof his campaign wealth to the other candidate out of fairness. He should be about lifting all ships, right?

bopbottle on October 21, 2008 at 11:15 AM

Yeah! And speaking of DIRTY SOCIALISM, Alaska is into “spreading the wealth around”, the goddamn socialists! They tax the oil companies’ windfall profits and dish out CASH to Alaskan citizens! OUTRAGEOUS!

Dave Rywall on October 21, 2008 at 11:08 AM

Well, if you were educated, you would know that the land where the oil companies drill and produce is owned by the people of the state of Alaska. Since the land is owned by the people (and not the oil companies), Alaska state law dictates that a portion of the profits are directed into a payment to the people. This way, the people have an interest in the oil industry and the economy of their state.

I guess in your convoluted logic, you could make an irrational argument that the entire state of Alaska and its citizens are “handmaidens of big oil.”

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 21, 2008 at 11:16 AM

Hey, you know what? An idiot would solicit the Russian UN envoy for a 5000$ political contribution. That’s what an idiot would do. Now who just did that…..Oh, right. McCain did.

Dave Rywall on October 21, 2008 at 10:59 AM

NEW YORK — John McCain has taken a brief time out from campaigning for the U.S. elections to admit a mistake – sending a letter to Russia’s UN envoy soliciting donations.

Ambassador Vitaly Churkin received the letter last week, the UN mission said on Monday in a statement, which stressed that Russia did not finance any foreign political activity.

Brian Rogers, a spokesman for McCain’s election campaign, told the BBC the campaign had not itself received any complaints from the mission and that “it sounds like they’re having a little fun at our expense.”

“It’s just an error,” he was quoted as saying.

It is illegal for presidential campaigns to accept donations from foreign nationals.

Senator McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, has been a harsh critic of Russia, most recently over the conflict with Georgia following Tbilisi’s attack on its breakaway republic of South Ossetia.

On August 12, as Russian troops were concluding their operation in Georgia, McCain said he had told Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili: ” I know I speak for every American when I say to him, ‘Today, we are all Georgians.”’

Last year he said the G8 should exclude Russia, citing “diminishing political freedoms, a leadership dominated by a clique of former intelligence officers, [and] efforts to bully democratic neighbors.”

The Russian diplomats may have taken the letter as an opportunity for a gentle push back.

But the McCain campaign has been able to laugh it off. According to the Washington Post, when asked whether there were any other ambassadors that they planned to solicit, Rogers laughed and said, “I hope not. Maybe we’ll find out tomorrow.”

Ruslan Bakhtin, press secretary of the Russian mission, said the letter was dated September 29 and carried McCain’s signature. It was addressed to Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s envoy to the United Nations, and arrived on October 16.

The ambassador’s title was not included in the letter, which Bakhtin said was an indication it had been sent in error.

Enclosed was a request for a donation of up to USD 5,000 to McCain’s election campaign to be returned with a check or permission to withdraw the money from the donor’s credit card until October 24.

McCain trails his Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama, in the polls, and in the money stakes. Obama announced on Sunday that his campaign had raised a record USD 150mn in September and he has massively outspent McCain, who cannot solicit private donations after accepting the USD 84mn available in federal funding.

jp on October 21, 2008 at 11:16 AM

unprecedented $150 million September

Stupid me. I thought we were in a recession, or depression, or something.

Brat on October 21, 2008 at 10:46 AM

Funny, I had the exact same thought. I guess some people are able to cut out the lattes to make a donation but not make a payment on a bill.

VikingGoneWild on October 21, 2008 at 11:17 AM

Excuse me; where, exactly, in the text of the (severely moronic) MCCAIN/feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act is anyone required to release this informatioin?

Face it: If Mr. and Mrs. Xr4ti and their 800 children each choose to donate $199.99 to Barak Obama, there’s not a thing in the world anybody can do about it. And John McCain is literally the last person in the world with any standing to complain.

logis on October 21, 2008 at 11:18 AM

Dave Rywall on October 21, 2008 at 11:03 AM

Good leftards have no ethics, only the hunger to gain power by any means possible. Which is why whenever someone like, well you, ever mentions ethics the first thing to do is determine what crap you are trying to pull.

Democrats–the crack whores of politics.

iconoclast on October 21, 2008 at 11:18 AM

Perhaps there are lots of donators from the full 58 states that Barry doesn’t want people to know about.

William Teach on October 21, 2008 at 11:18 AM

Dave Rywall on October 21, 2008 at 11:13 AM

Yep, your ignorance hurts you very much

Don’t be misled into thinking that Gov. Palin has championed the same sort of “windfall profits taxes” on oil companies that Obama has

Severance Tax != Windfall Profits tax

jp on October 21, 2008 at 11:18 AM

Well, if you were educated, you would know that the land where the oil companies drill and produce is owned by the people of the state of Alaska. Since the land is owned by the people (and not the oil companies), Alaska state law dictates that a portion of the profits are directed into a payment to the people. This way, the people have an interest in the oil industry and the economy of their state.

I guess in your convoluted logic, you could make an irrational argument that the entire state of Alaska and its citizens are “handmaidens of big oil.”

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 21, 2008 at 11:16 AM
————
So, then, Captain Genius, explain how that is not “spreading the wealth around”.

Dave Rywall on October 21, 2008 at 11:18 AM

jp on October 21, 2008 at 11:16 AM
—–
So what you’re saying is, it’s an incompetent fu*k up. You are correct.

Dave Rywall on October 21, 2008 at 11:19 AM

Dave Rywall on October 21, 2008 at 11:13 AM

Looks like Rywall has become a DBT. Oh well.

ManlyRash on October 21, 2008 at 11:20 AM

Excuse me; where, exactly, in the text of the (severely moronic) MCCAIN/feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act is anyone required to release this informatioin?

Face it: If Mr. and Mrs. Xr4ti and their 800 children each choose to donate $199.99 to Barak Obama, there’s not a thing in the world anybody can do about it. And John McCain is literally the last person in the world with any standing to complain.

logis on October 21, 2008 at 11:18 AM
———
The bill amended the campaign finance laws. I guess the issue you’re all wetting your pants about wasn’t important enough to be included in the amendments. So my point is, perhaps it should have been, and McCain co-sponsored the bill. Oopsie.

Dave Rywall on October 21, 2008 at 11:21 AM

Okay, explain this to me like I am a five year old:

ISN’T THAT ILLEGAL and where is the FBI, Homeland Security, the FEC, or anyone – if that’s what is really going on??

It just gives me a migraine to think this is happening right out in the open and nobody gives a flip.

tru2tx on October 21, 2008 at 11:12 AM

my only answers are the Internet is a new thing, creating opportunities for things that have never been done before.

plus, Democrats get Political Capital behind them, along with the bias MSM, and it makes it hard to go after them. Its basically like they have a Get out of Jail free card.

Same thing Mobsters do, giving stuff to the poor to get the mobs on their side, provides cover for their crimes

jp on October 21, 2008 at 11:21 AM

Aren’t “PO”, “ZX” and “QW” three of the 57 states that make up the United States of Captain Bull****?

Flyover Country on October 21, 2008 at 11:23 AM

Yet another impotent loser maneuver by the RNC.

What a pointless waste of time.

LimeyGeek on October 21, 2008 at 11:23 AM

DRywall, I’ve noticed that arguing with you is just like arguing with drywall. Go back to Vancouver or Smithers or wherever and cry in your near-beer over your Lieberals’ smashing success in last week’s Canadian elections.
Oh, the Libs got pasted?
Never mind.
—
Has anyone else noticed that this campaign, from the Donkey perspective, is all about Obama?
I’m seeing virtually no ads in my Cong. district, which has narrowly gone Republican the last three elections.
There’s something oddly Nixonian about all this.
Anybody else get that drift?

either orr on October 21, 2008 at 11:23 AM

Yep, your ignorance hurts you very much

Don’t be misled into thinking that Gov. Palin has championed the same sort of “windfall profits taxes” on oil companies that Obama has

Severance Tax != Windfall Profits tax

jp on October 21, 2008 at 11:18 AM
—-

You can call it a donkeyfu*k tax if you like.

It doesn’t change the fact that the Palin put through legislation that taxed oil companies and the proceeds were REDISTRIBUTED to every man, woman and child in Alaska.

Dave Rywall on October 21, 2008 at 11:23 AM

But…But…But…He’s the most ethical candidate running the most transparent campaign…EVAH!

RocketmanBob on October 21, 2008 at 11:25 AM

Obama’s campaign is afraid American people will find out most of the money is coming from Middle Eastern countries.

pukara61 on October 21, 2008 at 11:25 AM

So, then, Captain Genius, explain how that is not “spreading the wealth around”.

Dave Rywall on October 21, 2008 at 11:18 AM

The oil in question, is on state property. The Severence “TAX” is a sliding scale fee they pay for permanently removing what is, State property. Its a book keeping mechanism so sell a state resource (oil) to a private company.

Thus, the STATE reaps some of the benefits of that sale, and because they have so much income, are able to give some of that money back to State Citizens.

Crap, I wish the Feds would be so smart about BLM land… ALL our taxes would decrease.

Romeo13 on October 21, 2008 at 11:25 AM

So, then, Captain Genius, explain how that is not “spreading the wealth around”. – Dave Rywall on October 21, 2008 at 11:18 AM

In the context of Obama’s political philosophy the phrase “spreading the wealth around” involves redistribution of wealth from those who produce income to those who do not.

Now think very, very carefully before you respond to this.

ManlyRash on October 21, 2008 at 11:26 AM

It doesn’t change the fact that the Palin put through legislation that taxed oil companies and the proceeds were REDISTRIBUTED to every man, woman and child in Alaska.

Dave Rywall on October 21, 2008 at 11:23 AM

Nope, that is not what happened at all. It was a Severance Tax, not a Re-Tax on profits after they were already taxed and paid to people who have no ownership over the Oil or Gas or whatever part of Exxons operations the profits are coming from.

from link

Basically, I thought Ed (and, inferentially, Mr. Spruiell) had been taken in by a hatchet job from a Seattle newspaper which was carefully calculated to argue that Sarah Palin is a fan of windfall profits taxes on oil companies, just like Barack Obama.

That’s not so. Palin has stood up to the major oil companies, and has made utterly transparent the State of Alaska’s dealings with them, but she is neither in their pocket nor a rabble-rouser who unfairly demonizes them. She’s dealt with them like a responsible public servant, not a class warrior. I’ll reprint here the comment Mr. Spruiell kindly referenced, along with a subsequent one on the same post describing my emails to Ed (again, without blockquotes, and with slight editing):

—————–

What the article you linked to is discussing is a severance tax. State severance taxes charged on production of oil and gas and minerals are common throughout the United States. Also sometimes called “production taxes,” they’re charged by the state from beneath whose land valuable resources are extracted, and they’re designed not to punish the energy companies, but to recompense the state for its loss of a non-replaceable resource — one that must be quantified and taxed upon removal, if it is ever to be taxed at all. Severance taxes are therefore based on production from within the state, not on profits earned by the company extracting that production — even though the production may be measured in, and the tax assessed upon, the market value or gross revenues (as measured in dollars) received for that production, rather than an “in kind” delivery to the state in barrels or cubic feet as such. See, e.g., Tex. Tax Code §§ 201.051 & 202.051 (Texas production taxes on gas and oil respectively).

Indeed, I once represented Conoco in a Houston lawsuit against Mobil over how to allocate the severance tax they jointly owed based on jointly owned oil and gas leases in Idaho. There’s actually a fair amount of competing case-law from different states over whether severance taxes are more properly characterized as “property taxes” or “income taxes” — if for some reason (e.g., interpreting a sloppy contract) you have to put them into one of those two categories or the other. But in any event, severance taxes are in no way premised on the notion that energy companies are making unconscionable or excessive profits.

Alaska’s previous version of its severance tax had been negotiated behind closed doors by defeated Gov. Frank Murkowski, a few top state legislators (some of whom are now in prison for corruption), and energy lobbyists. One of the campaign planks upon which Gov. Palin ran for office was replacing that tax with one negotiated in the open with full transparency; and the resulting tax was, indeed, slightly more favorable to the State of Alaska. The article you linked tells some of this anti-corruption history on the part of Gov. Palin. But just because the newspaper headline writers and some of the people the article quoted used the word “windfall,” don’t be fooled into thinking that the tax in question is the same thing Barack Obama and the Democrats are now promoting at a national level.

Rather, what Obama and the Dems are promoting is nothing less than selective government confiscation of the property of a particular industry, on the theory that such industry’s profits are “excessive.” That’s a repugnant rabble-rousing scheme, populism turned into class warfare and carried to its excessive worst. It’s completely unjustifiable either morally or economically. Its short-term victims are going to be energy-company shareholders (which include huge numbers of pension plans in which ordinary Americans have investments), but its long-term victims will be all Americans (who will suffer as our own energy companies are put at an increasing competitive disadvantage compared to others in the world, and whose national security interests will be further harmed as we become even more dependent on foreign sources of fossil-fuel energy).

jp on October 21, 2008 at 11:26 AM

George Soros does not like this turn of events…

BKennedy on October 21, 2008 at 11:26 AM

jp on October 21, 2008 at 11:21 AM

Thanks for the narrative. I guess I naievely believed I lived in a country that had laws, people who obeyed laws, and those who didn’t, paid the consequences.

It breaks my heart. And really makes me angry.

tru2tx on October 21, 2008 at 11:27 AM

but Dave, please make sure the PUMA’s aren’t aware of economic factoids on Palin’s tax. Just may be something they are voting for her over.

jp on October 21, 2008 at 11:27 AM

McCain should remind everyone that every time they hear or see an Obama ad from now until election day it can serve as a reminder that Obama broke his word on campaign funding.

If he broke his word on that, do you think he will keep his promises about taxes?

forest on October 21, 2008 at 11:30 AM

If you did this with big checks at a bank it is called laundering,

ding ding ding!

There’s the word I was wondering if I’d see!!

Sure smacks of it to me.

tru2tx on October 21, 2008 at 11:30 AM

jp on October 21, 2008 at 11:26 AM

Well done, JP.

ManlyRash on October 21, 2008 at 11:32 AM

It looks more like Team Obama doesn’t want people perusing the massive numbers of donors with names like Qwerty Poiuy, Asdfgh Lkjh’;, and Zxcvb Mn09876 from the states of PO, ZX, and QW.

Nailed it, Ed.

Mr_Magoo on October 21, 2008 at 11:32 AM

Comment pages: 1 2