Wanted: $1 million donations for Obama’s inauguration

posted at 6:51 pm on January 8, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

And the ‘dramatic reversal’ only continues to get more dramatic as the main event approaches. For his 2009 inauguration, Obama’s inaugural committee specifically banned donations from corporations and what they deemed excessive individual donations in a much-vaunted maneuver to demonstrate how special interests would not dominate his presidency… but meh, enough with the charade already, times are tough:

Planners of President Barack Obama’s second inauguration are making an unprecedented solicitation for high-dollar contributions up to $1 million to help pay for the celebration in exchange for special access.

The changes are part of a continuing erosion of Obama’s pledge to keep donors and special interests at arm’s length of his presidency. He has abandoned the policy from his first inauguration to accept donations up to only $50,000 from individuals, announcing last month that he would take unlimited contributions from individuals and corporations.

A fundraising appeal obtained by The Associated Press shows the Presidential Inaugural Committee is going far beyond his previous self-imposed limits – or apparently any fundraising in the modern history of American presidential inaugurations – by offering donors four VIP packages named after the country’s founding fathers. …

But the pressure is high to pay for the festivities after donors already contributed to the most expensive political race in U.S. history, a campaign that exceeded $2 billion. So far, health care executives and major Democratic Party donors – including those who’ve taken private meetings with Obama or his senior staff – are among those paying for the party.

Again, the fact that a president is seeking donations to fund some inaugural festivities would not be such a big deal, if Team Obama had not specifically made it such a big deal. The spirit of Hopenchange was pervasive enough in 2008 and early 2009 to fully fund as many glamorous parties as a brand new administration could ask for, so at the time the Democrats had no issues making much ado of the moral compass ostensibly directing them to reject all major and corporate donations — but now that they’re suddenly having trouble finding funds from a disenchanted audience after an expensive election cycle, it’s all suddenly okay again.

And as for all of those special and corporate interests that weren’t supposed to characterize Obama’s presidency? Riiiiight:

“This was a pure White House ask,” one GOP Senate aide familiar with the fiscal cliff negotiations told me when I asked how $60+ billion of special-interest tax breaks ended up in the fiscal cliff deal. I called and emailed the White House for days, but couldn’t get confirmation or denial.

But now Reuters seems to corroborate what my Republican sources told me:

White House spokesman Jay Carney on Monday said that Obama supported the overall package of tax breaks for businesses. He emphasized that the president favored the wind energy credit and tax benefits for research and development to encourage “job-creating research investments.”

Tags: , , , , , ,

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

If government is going to be arbiter of fair and lawful competition, long as RICO, monopoly, and other LARGE laws aren’t being violated, then government is WAY too large.

Liam on May 21, 2013 at 8:44 PM

The real question, of course, is why DC — and other cities like it — even have so much innovation- and freedom-crushing red tape

How else are the bureaucrats going to keep the bribe money coming?

malclave on May 21, 2013 at 8:48 PM

How else are the bureaucrats going to keep the bribe money coming?

malclave on May 21, 2013 at 8:48 PM

That pretty much covers the topic.

Liam on May 21, 2013 at 8:53 PM

How do you pronounce this: womp

Whoomp (as in Whoomp, there it is)? Wahmp (rhymes with pomp)? something else?

cptacek on May 21, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Uber is a FANTASTIC company… naturally, it and the innovation it represents would be antithetical to the current oppressive environment this crony-based government has spawned…

dpduq on May 21, 2013 at 9:03 PM

simply provide customers with the option of hailing a taxi with a smartphone app is being put through the ringer in the nation’s capitol, too.

I hate to throw the grammar Nazi flag, but the word I bolded above should be wringer.

Gator Country on May 21, 2013 at 9:13 PM

How do you pronounce this: womp

Whoomp (as in Whoomp, there it is)? Wahmp (rhymes with pomp)? something else?

cptacek on May 21, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Woah! Erika’s quite the womp rat!

KS Rex on May 21, 2013 at 9:44 PM

Wringer is a ringer for “ringer”

Now if you’ll excuse, I have clothes to dry.

wolly4321 on May 21, 2013 at 9:45 PM

The real question, of course, is why DC — and other cities like it — even have so much innovation- and freedom-crushing red tape

And then those cities wonder out loud why they continually suffer ‘brain drains’ when the best and brightest flee for greener pastures.

It’s not rocket surgery.

Myron Falwell on May 21, 2013 at 9:56 PM

The real question, of course, is why DC — and other cities like it — even have so much innovation- and freedom-crushing red tape that diverts so much of what could otherwise be everybody’s profitable time and resources into fighting for permission to operate and completely legitimate and highly efficient business that creates real jobs and improves people’s lives. You’d think that small businesses daring to threaten the established order were doing something illicit, what with all the hoops they have to jump through these days — and that is no way to grow any kind of economy, be it on a micro- or macro-level.

Just like the medieval guilds, the purpose is to protect the existing businesses from aggressive competition.

And yes, this undermines the whole free enterprise system. Fortunately, the startups just view it as one more obstacle to get past, and manage anyway. But it’s still a waste of time and money.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 22, 2013 at 10:26 AM

Had the opportunity to use Uber’s sedan service in L.A. a few weeks ago.

As soon as the service was ordered I knew that my car was 4 minutes away. I watched on the screen as it got closer and closer. When it hit 1 minute, I saw a black sedan on the opposite side of the street signaling to make a u-turn.

Contrast this with a year earlier when I called for a taxi in order to make the exact same trip. I was told that they were busy but they’d have someone there in 10 minutes. 15 minutes later I called and was told that someone would be there in 10 minutes. Another 15 minutes later I called and was told dispatch had sent someone and if they weren’t there in 5 minutes I should give them another call. 10 minutes after that I flagged down a passing cab and they got my business instead.

The Uber sedan service was $90 with tip. The taxi was $110 with tip.

If Uber wants to extend their business into the taxi realm (and they plan to keep the same level of service), it’s nothing but a boon to the residents of the cities they are operating in.

JadeNYU on May 22, 2013 at 11:02 AM

But Uber argues that the the taxi regulations issued last week, which go into effect June 1, would require it to link its payment system to the payment providers integrated into the new meters that taxis will begin installing this summer.

Wonder how much the preferred payment providers are paying DC?

unclesmrgol on May 22, 2013 at 11:43 AM