The Alan Grayson Page

The Anthony Weiner Page

Guest Contributors


  • BN-Politics' administrators respect, but do not necessarily endorse, views expressed by our contributors. Our goal is to get the ideas out there. After that, they're on their own.
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 05/2007

Blog Catalog

  • Liberalism Political Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory



« Co-Payments for Life-Preserving Drugs Going Sky-High | Main | IRS Contractors Cost Taxpayers More than They Collect »

April 14, 2008



"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


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.


The comments to this entry are closed.