Organizing for Action: Er, we won’t be accepting corporate donations after all — how’s that sound?
posted at 9:01 pm on March 7, 2013 by Erika Johnsen
President Obama’s campaign-machinery-turned-”advocacy group” got a lot of rather negative attention last week, when the New York Times reported that donors who contribute or raise $500,000 or more for Organizing for Action will be magnanimously granted the high privilege of attending quarterly meetings with the president, along with other meetings at the White House — a.k.a., Organizing for Action will be selling access to the president to the highest bidders.
It would seem that Team Obama took offense at that unfortunate turn of phrasing, and Jim Messina — erstwhile Obama campaign manager and newfound OFA national chairman — was compelled to pen an op-ed defending the new group and announcing a couple of policy changes. Because, you know, they’re so committed to transparency and thwarting special interests, and everything.
The president has always believed that special interests have undue influence over the policymaking process, and the mission of this organization is to rebalance the power structure.
While Organizing for Action is a nonprofit social welfare organization that faces a lower disclosure threshold than a political campaign, we believe in being open and transparent. That’s why every donor who gives $250 or more to this organization will be disclosed on the website with the exact amount they give on a quarterly basis. We have now decided not to accept contributions from corporations, federal lobbyists or foreign donors.
Supporters of Organizing for Action will dedicate their time to mobilize their friends and neighbors on behalf of the president’s agenda. Whether you’re a volunteer or a donor, we can’t and we won’t guarantee access to any government officials. But just as the president and administration officials deliver updates on the legislative process to Americans and organizations across the ideological spectrum, there may be occasions when members of Organizing for Action are included in those updates. These are not opportunities to lobby — they are briefings on the positions the president has taken and the status of seeing them through.
Let me just reiterate that. OFA cannot and will not guarantee access to any government officials, but “just as the president and administration officials deliver updates on the legislative process to Americans and organizations across the ideological spectrum, there may be occasions when members of Organizing for Action are included in those updates.” …So, basically, all you’re really saying is… ‘This is happening, sorry we’re not sorry’?
Not accepting corporate, foreign, or federally-registered lobbyist donations and disclosing the names and amounts all big-dollar donors might be a small step in a more transparent direction, but that doesn’t really address the heart of the “selling access” complaints, does it? Individuals can still donate in unlimited amounts, and probably get a visit with the president out of it. “These are not opportunities to lobby”? Spare us the lip service.
On Thursday, campaign-finance watchdog groups remained critical of its fundraising structure, despite the new ban on corporate giving.
“OFA remains an unprecedented entity that allows individual donors and bundlers to provide unlimited amounts of money to an organization functioning as the arm of the Obama presidency,” Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, said in a statement.
Related Posts:
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
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
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
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
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
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
Wonder how much the preferred payment providers are paying DC?
unclesmrgol on May 22, 2013 at 11:43 AM