Obama cites a “nonpartisan economist” — who also happens to be a campaign donor
posted at 6:01 pm on July 16, 2012 by Erika Johnsen
President Obama is continuing his campaigning this week, this time swinging back through crucial swing-state Ohio. During a speech in Cincinnati, the president cracked a jobs-related joke at Mitt Romney’s expense, referring to an economic analysis which, he informed the audience, is a product of a “nonpartisan” study.
“We have not found any serious economic study that says Governor Romney’s economic plan would actually create jobs, until today,” Obama said. “I’ve got to be honest: Today we found out, there’s a new study out by [a] non-partisan economist that says Governor Romney’s economic plan would in fact create 800,000 jobs. There’s only one problem: The jobs wouldn’t be in America. They would not be in America.”
So… does that mean that Democratic campaign donors now qualify as “nonpartisan” sources? From the Weekly Standard:
At a speech earlier today in Cincinnati, Ohio, President Obama cited economic analysis conducted by one of his campaign donors, Kimberly Clausing, and called her a “non-partisan economist.” Clausing, a college professor from Reed College, has donated to President Obama and several Democratic politicians and causes over the last dozen years. …
As we detailed earlier, “Clausing, according to donor records, gave Obama for America $250 on May 18, 2012. Likewise, on September 14, 2011, Clausing gave $242 to Obama for America, records reveal.” …
In addition to her financial support for Obama, Clausing has donated money to the Democratic Party of Oregon ($250), the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ($500), the Democratic National Committee ($500), John Kerry for President ($1,000), Dean for America ($300), Gore and Gore/Lieberman ($1,500), and many others.
You’d probably be hard-pressed to find any well-off academic who hasn’t made a campaign contribution of some sort in their lifetime, but why does President Obama feel the need to insist that his sources are “nonpartisan”? (I, for one, will always remain highly skeptical that the elusive “nonpartisan” beast actually exists.) As Daniel Halper points out, chalk it up to “crony economics.”