More on Obama's Campaign Finances

Let me say this in Obama's defense:  he didn't exactly lie.  The truth about his campaign finances is simply a further example of the wide discrepancy between the Obama brand and what he actually has on the shelves.

"We can't just change political parties in the White House and think that things are going to change here in Harrisburg," Obama said during a recent presidential campaign stop. "We've got to change how politics is done in Washington."

Obama told the crowd that's why he doesn't accept contributions from political action committees or lobbyists.

"They're not funding my campaign. They won't run my White House," he said. (Newshouse)

There's just one problem.  "[C]ampaign finance records show that Obama has received tens of thousands of dollars from people in many of the same groups and industries he regularly rails against."(Newshouse)

  I wouldn't care if it weren't for the fact that he's consistently presented himself as above all that.  We knew this wasn't the case  because we went to the Center for Responsive Politics (which tracks campaign finance issues) months ago and looked at all the candidates.   And it's Sheila Krumholtz, the executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics who is quoted here:

"He may not take money from (political action committees) or lobbyists, but he is taking interest money... He's getting a lot of money from individuals representing lawyers and law firms, security firms, real estate and Hollywood....You can't say that he doesn't take special-interest money."(Newshouse)

In fact, he has taken quite a lot of money from the spouses of lobbyists.

State lobbyists and non-wage-earning spouses of lobbyists and lobbying firm employees have contributed $115,163 to Obama's campaign through March 20, according to the center.(Newshouse)

Of course, the spouses of lobbyists aren't lobbyists so he was technically telling the truth when he said it.

Like Clinton, he's received a lot of money from the oil and gas industry, big pharma, and the health industry.  In fact, he's received more from big pharma and the health industry than even Hillary. 

People in the oil and gas industries have given $222,309 to Obama. He received $528,765 from the pharmaceutical and health industry, making him the largest recipient of the sector's largesse. (Newshouse)

Senator Bob Casey thinks that Obama's way of raising money makes the contributions makes all the difference.

U.S. Sen. Bob Casey Jr., D-Pa., an Obama supporter, acknowledged that Obama's campaign has taken contributions from state lobbyists and people in business sectors.

"Sure, sure he has. But I think when you line up the way he's raised money with the way most presidential candidates in both parties have for a generation, there's no comparison," Casey said on NBC's "Meet the Press."(Newshouse)

I have no idea what that means.  His contributors, in contrast to Hillary's and McCain's, were so besotted with his poignant charm that they just opened up their coffers and rained gold into his war chest without expecting any quid pro quo?   

Governor Ed Rendell found his claims not to take money from special interests "a little disingenuous."(Newshouse)  I'll say  After all, taking "large bundled contributions from nuclear power, utility and oil company executives" makes it look a bit as if he is taking money from people whose interests are closely tied in with nuclear power, utility companies, and oil.  To the average viewer, it looks a bit of a technicality, though it's quite possible that all those executives are just good Democrats with a keen interest in promoting the welfare of the poor, universal health care, and a speedy end to the war in Iraq.  Yes, that must be it!

Anyway his 'spokeswoman' says that there IS a distinction between the money he gets and the money Clinton gets.  ""The main thing is that Sen. Obama has been consistent," she said. "He's said, 'I don't take money from PACs or federally registered lobbyists.'"" (Newshouse)   

In other words, he only promised not to take it from actual political action committees or federally registered lobbyists.  If it comes from the lobbyist's spouse, that's altogether different.

The Clinton campaign has called him out on the "I don't take money from oil companies" ad.  As they point out, it is in fact illegal to take money from oil companies.  Taking it from oil company executives --- as he has most definitely done --- is different.

RELATED BN-POLITICS POSTINGS

Obama:  "Ill-Chosen" Words 

Obama Critic Quits Radio Show Over Hatred?   

Obama on Pennsylvanians: Just Words -- but the Wrong Ones   

Indiana School Allowed Obama but Not Hillary to Speak?   

Jon Stewart:  Obama Wins 'Dick Move of the Week'

Comments

[Adam]

"To the average viewer, it looks a bit of a technicality, though it's quite possible that all those executives are just good Democrats with a keen interest in promoting the welfare of the poor, universal health care, and a speedy end to the war in Iraq. Yes, that must be it!"

No, of course it musn't, but it very well COULD be. And in the only two cases I actually looked into, evidence very strongly pointed to that being the case. A few counterexamples, where Obama contributors' only political causes were related to their industry, would bolster your argument.

When Newshouse says "He's getting a lot of money from individuals representing lawyers and law firms, security firms, real estate and Hollywood...." they are exaggerating their story. People who represent those interests are called lobbyists. What Obama is doing is taking money from individuals WHO WORK FOR law firms, etc. Again, this CAN be the same thing, but we have no evidence that it is.

Here's a thought experiement for you. If this is really a distinction without a difference, then why isn't McCain, who has worked for campaign finance reform, doing the same thing? Why isn't Hillary taking away one of the biggest talking points of Obama's campaign by taking the same stance he is? The obvious answer is, because it DOES matter. Refusing money from lobbyists forces a campaign to change its fundraising model, and that is not easy.

What Bob Casey meant is obvious to me. Obama has received more small contributions from more individual donors than any candidate in the history of political candidates. The base of his financial support is drastically broader than any privately-financed candidate in history. It IS historical.

I want to be clear here: I have no problem with you disputing the way Obama represents his finances. Reasonable minds can disagree on the significance of his no-lobbyist stance and whether he is truly not beholden to special interests. But what I believe is indisputable is that Obama's financial support is incredibly, and uniquely, broad-based. That IS exceptional and it's perfectly reasonable for (that slimy weasel) Bob Casey to point it out.

[D. Cupples]

Adam,

You're right: Obama has taken more money off the Internet than even Dean did. And he does seem to have a lot of small donations.

I'm glad that you don't mind our pointing out the gap between what Obama says about his funding sources and the reality thereof.

Deb