1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Who needs another crock pot? Donate to Obama instead!

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Batman, Jun 25, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Batman

    Batman Well-Known Member

    Obama's latest fundraising tool is the "Obama event registry," which encourages people to forego gifts for things like weddings, birthdays, graduations, etc., and have their friends and loved ones donate to his campaign instead.
    Taking politics out of this, this would be incredibly tacky for anyone to do. But for a sitting president? Really? Did the White House bake sale and yard sale not raise enough money?


  2. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

  3. Greenhorn

    Greenhorn Active Member

    Who needs another crackpot? Vote Obama instead!
  4. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    Obama should register at Crate & Barrel.
  5. Piotr Rasputin

    Piotr Rasputin New Member

    Shameless, I would say.

    But likely also effective.
  6. J-School Blue

    J-School Blue Member

    I don't think this is unprecedented. I've certainly heard of couples asking for donations to charities or other causes instead of gifts. I've seen it before in the context of (straight) couples who support and want donations going toward gay marriage advocacy, which is where I assume the idea came from.

    In the context of all the disgusting fund raising efforts, including others the Obama campaign is engaged in, I have trouble getting fired up about something like this.
  7. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    It's really not fair of him to keep trying to win the election. The Republicans did everything they could to ruin their candidacy, why can't he?
  8. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    Disgusting. He should just have the billionaires write him checks.

    I am con ... con... uhmmm... confounded.
  9. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    I ran for president, and all I got was this lousy crock pot!
  10. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Such as this? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/07/george-soros-political-donations_n_1498610.html

    There are approximately 400 billionaires in America. Despite the fantastic notions in your head, they by and large don't fund our presidential elections. To the extent they are involved in PACs, the money flows to both parties.

    Corporations and Universities (which gave overwhelmingly to Obama, not McCain, in 2008) are much more active in buying candidates with campaign contributions made by their PACs than the relatively insignificant number of billionaires in this country. And there, too, the president already figured out how the game is played on his own. He's an ace, actually: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638

    In fact, he was much better at getting corporations to write him checks in 2008 than John MCain was: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00006424

    The only difference is that Goldman Sachs and Microsoft and Time Warner and Harvard University and Stanford University and General Electric actually get paid back with quid pro quos for their half million dollar plus contributions. The stupid shmuck who wastes his or her money by giving it to a presidential candidate (from either party) is simply a chump who wasted his or her money.
  11. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    Romney gets a much higher percentage of his funding from big donors. www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php

    And Super PAC money seems to flow mostly to Romney as well. www.opensecrets.org/pres12/superpacs.php
  12. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Obama didn't play the Super PAC game until February or March of this year, and it took them time to get one up and running in full mode. That explains the second chart.

    It was his typical bullshit. In 2008, Super PACs were a “threat to democracy." In 2012. ... not so much a threat. When it became apparent he wasn't going to be able to raise money as easily as he did last time, because the country has lost the stars in its eyes (why he didn't need his own fundraising PAC in 2008), he raced to put together a Super PAC.

    Obama was such a fundraising juggernaut last go around that Democrats haven't fully embraced the notion of a Super PAC yet. But now that he is going the Super PAC route rather than using his own machine to solicit money from special-interest funded PACs, he is playing catch up pretty quickly. His new Super PAC raised $4 million in May. Romney's Super PAC, which had a huge head start in the game, raised $5 million.

    By August or September, Obama's Super PAC will be raking in cash. His campaign itself will be raising less money directly from outside PACs than it did last time.

    Anyone who thinks there is any difference between the two candidates in this regard -- where the money paying for their campaigns comes from, and what they give in return to the people who put up that money, is willfully ignorant. Whether it is through corporate-run PACs, special-interest run PACs or their own Super PACs, both candidates are for sale.

    There are subtle differences in the special interests that traditionally line up behind each party, but it's big money to both parties and it's a game of corruption -- whether it is labor unions (the largest contributors there are) buying off Obama, or corporations that want specially-crafted tax loopholes buying off Romney. Whether it is George Soros being a maniacal prick who needs the ego boost of being able to say he created the king, or Charles Koch being a maniacal prick who needs the ego boost of being able to say he created the king, it's the same exact game.

    And any individual who makes a small contribution to either of those corrupt hyenas is a sucker. If you gave that $50 or $100 to a homeless person or a community center that is strapped for cash, you can at least get the utility of feeling like you made a real difference somewhere.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page