• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The real impact of Citizens United showing more and more

"Barack Obama rejected public funding for the fall presidential campaign yesterday, a dramatic blow to 1970s good-government reform that has been overwhelmed by an explosion of private money.

John McCain confirmed later yesterday that he will take $84.1 million in taxpayer funding for the general election, and accused Obama of reneging on a pledge to do the same. "He has completely reversed himself and gone back, not on his word to me, but the commitment he made to the American people," McCain told reporters.

Obama's decision to become the first major-party candidate to opt out of public financing for the general election frees him to continue his record-shattering, Internet-driven fund-raising until November - and probably to outspend McCain by a vast amount. But it opens the Democrat to accusations of an about-face on past statements that he would take the public grant and limit spending to that amount if the Republican nominee agreed to do likewise."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/20/in_a_shift_obama_rejects_public_funding/?page=full


I think I remember all the outrage about this....maybe not.
 
Last edited:
Turning down optional public money in lieu of raising your own money is a little bit different than having a Super Pac essentially run your campaign. I don't like the theory of either of the latter two, but having a Super Pac run things to maximize anonymous donations is absurd.
 
Sgt Hulka said:
"Barack Obama rejected public funding for the fall presidential campaign yesterday, a dramatic blow to 1970s good-government reform that has been overwhelmed by an explosion of private money.

John McCain confirmed later yesterday that he will take $84.1 million in taxpayer funding for the general election, and accused Obama of reneging on a pledge to do the same. "He has completely reversed himself and gone back, not on his word to me, but the commitment he made to the American people," McCain told reporters.

Obama's decision to become the first major-party candidate to opt out of public financing for the general election frees him to continue his record-shattering, Internet-driven fund-raising until November - and probably to outspend McCain by a vast amount. But it opens the Democrat to accusations of an about-face on past statements that he would take the public grant and limit spending to that amount if the Republican nominee agreed to do likewise."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/20/in_a_shift_obama_rejects_public_funding/?page=full


I think I remember all the outrage about this....maybe not.
Click to expand...

A) yes, there was plenty of outrage.
B) I would think you are smart enough to see the difference.
 
BeachBumDeac said:
A super PAC is going to run Jeb Bush's campaign. So his campaign is going to be able to get unlimited anonymous donations. It might be illegal, but since it's a gray area then the courts would decide long after the election actually happened. Awesome job, US political system

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...eb-bush-and-the-first-super-pac-run-campaign/
Click to expand...

Cute.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/11/u...ce-2016-run-for-president-on-sunday.html?_r=0

money shot if you don't feel like clicking the link: "...her finance team and the outside groups supporting her candidacy have started collecting checks in what is expected to be a $2.5 billion effort, dwarfing the vast majority of her would-be rivals in both parties."

edit.. Jeb's just trying to keep pace, monetarily speaking..
 
It always gets me that Republicans complain about money as speech when it's Democrats raising the money. Keep in mind that Citizens United began as an anti-Hillary effort. She'd scale back fundraising if she didn't have to play by conservative rules in order to win.

Stop bitching.
 
PhDeac said:
It always gets me that Republicans complain about money as speech when it's Democrats raising the money. Keep in mind that Citizens United began as an anti-Hillary effort. She'd scale back fundraising if she didn't have to play by conservative rules in order to win.

Stop bitching.
Click to expand...

:bowrofl:
:bowrofl:
 
PhDeac said:
It always gets me that Republicans complain about money as speech when it's Democrats raising the money. Keep in mind that Citizens United began as an anti-Hillary effort. She'd scale back fundraising if she didn't have to play by conservative rules in order to win.

Stop bitching.
Click to expand...

Lol-no-random-26424035-552-522.jpg
 
PhDeac said:
It always gets me that Republicans complain about money as speech when it's Democrats raising the money. Keep in mind that Citizens United began as an anti-Hillary effort. She'd scale back fundraising if she didn't have to play by conservative rules in order to win.

Stop bitching.
Click to expand...

Giving you the benefit of the doubt.. clearly your morning starbucks wasn't yet in play..
 
I'm curious why you all think she would have to raise $2.5B if we went back to pre-Citizens United landscape. Hell, it would be almost to raise that much under the old system.

Citizens United put that level of fundraising in play.
 
Jim Kenney Wins Democratic Bid for Mayor of Philadelphia In Landslide Victory

Update that no one cares about but me - all the money raised for Tony Williams didn't really work out. It may have backfired, as people in Philly weren't too thrilled with the idea of three dudes from the suburbs picking the mayor of Philadelphia. Between this and Williams' race for governor, the three Main Liners spent $12MM on failed campaigns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top