In reversal, President Obama to accept corporate donations to help fund inauguration

[lavenderviolet]

In reversal, President Obama to accept corporate donations to help fund inauguration

Reversing his earlier stance, President Obama will accept corporate money to pay for his second inauguration, the event’s organizers said Friday.

“Our goal is to make sure that we will meet the fundraising requirements for this civic event after the most expensive presidential campaign in history,” Addie Whisenant, a spokeswoman for the Presidential Inaugural Committee, said in an e-mail.

The committee will not accept money from lobbyists or political action committees and will publish the names of donors to a website “regularly,” she said.

The decision marks a dramatic reversal from his first inauguration when Obama banned corporate, lobbyist and PAC donations and imposed a $50,000 cap on other contributions. At the time, spokesman Josh Earnest said Obama banned corporate money and imposed other restrictions to “change business as usual in Washington.”

I hope you didn’t actually think that Obama was any different than any of the other corporate-backed millionaires that run our country.

[FinnAgain]

He’s a Hitler!!!

[Hamlet]

Nevermind.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Well, I… still don’t care. I’m sure as hell not paying for it.

[Czarcasm]

Wow! That makes him exactly like every other President!

[Inner_Stickler]

Was this an integral part of his re-election campaign? I can tell you that I didn’t decide to vote for him because I thought he would crowd-source his inauguration funds.

[Revtim]

I didn’t even know there was going to be a second inauguration.

But yeah, I never met anybody who thought Obama wasn’t corporate backed, he was just a better (or least worse) choice. Is this related to the “Obama voters think he’s the messiah” right wing lie, or an new independent lie?

[Marley23]

Surely this is the most astonishing political sellout ever. I guess. Could you explain why, lavenderviolet?

[John_Mace]

Oh noes! Can I get my vote back!!!

[suranyi]

@Revtim

I didn’t even know there was going to be a second inauguration.

But yeah, I never met anybody who thought Obama wasn’t corporate backed, he was just a better (or least worse) choice. Is this related to the “Obama voters think he’s the messiah” right wing lie, or an new independent lie?

There’s always a second inauguration (assuming the president is re-elected).

I was annoyed when there was a second inauguration for Ronald Reagan, just because I didn’t like the guy. But now that I’ve seen second ones for Clinton and Bush II, I realize that it’s really normal.

[Esox_Lucius]

I’m shocked!:eek: Not by the OP’s stunning revelation, but I assumed the inauguration was a state function paid for by the state. Why does the prez have to pay for it?

[Ravenman]

@Esox_Lucius

I’m shocked!:eek: Not by the OP’s stunning revelation, but I assumed the inauguration was a state function paid for by the state. Why does the prez have to pay for it?

Things like inaugural balls are not legitimate government expenses, so the funds have to be raised to pay for those. The government does pick up the tab for the official swearing-in, like for construction of the stage, security, and probably the porta-potty rentals specifically for that event.

[Kearsen]

Not that this is overly shocking but it still demonstrates (maybe only to those few) hypocrisy to those who really thought Obama was going to bring Hope, Change and some transparency

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@suranyi

There’s always a second inauguration (assuming the president is re-elected).

I was annoyed when there was a second inauguration for Ronald Reagan, just because I didn’t like the guy. But now that I’ve seen second ones for Clinton and Bush II, I realize that it’s really normal.

I too realize the second inauguration is normal and expected. But, as I think I wrote hereabouts back in 2008, I really wish Obama would eschew the normal pomp & circumstance and do something more modest.

[Inner_Stickler]

@Kearsen

Not that this is overly shocking but it still demonstrates (maybe only to those few) hypocrisy to those who really thought Obama was going to bring Hope, Change and some transparency

The end of DADT, official support of marriage equality, the beginning of a process to fix the healthcare system? Sure looks like change to me.

[Trinopus]

But Guantanamo! There’s still Guantanamo! He LIED! Waah!

And, wait…if his FIRST inauguration didn’t accept corporate money, then, at least for one great shining moment, he WAS different from all other Presidents. Yay!

(So, how’s that Benghazi thing working for ya? Impeachment hearings scheduled yet?)

[Marley23]

@Kearsen

it still demonstrates (maybe only to those few) hypocrisy to those who really thought Obama was going to bring Hope, Change and some transparency

And why does it do that? I can see you and the OP are taking this for granted but you’re not explaining.

President Obama will accept corporate money to pay for his second inauguration, the event’s organizers said Friday.
[…] The committee will not accept money from lobbyists or political action committees and will publish the names of donors to a website “regularly,” she said. The decision marks a dramatic reversal from his first inauguration when Obama banned corporate, lobbyist and PAC donations and imposed a $50,000 cap on other contributions.

Obama didn’t accept corporate money for the 2009 inauguration. He will for the 2013 inauguration, although he won’t take money from lobbyists and PACs and says the names of donors will be disclosed. The conclusion is that Obama is the same as every other politician (even the ones who supported Citizens United or favor lower taxes for the wealthy or slam Obama for being anti-business) and is un-transparent because _________________________________________________________________________________________. Really, fill in the blank.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Inner_Stickler

The end of DADT, official support of marriage equality, the beginning of a process to fix the healthcare system? Sure looks like change to me.

…not to mention that universal citizen health care defeated every other President since Truman.

Reforming student loans and saving the government billions also counts as change to this citizen-taxpayer. As does the Lily Ledbetter Act, guaranteeing the same damn dollar for the same damn work. And oddly, Wall Street bankers don’t seem to agree with the OP, judging from their butthurt rhetoric and opposition to Dodd-Frank and Elizabeth Warren.

We also pulled out of Iraq and banned torture. Face it, Obama’s first congress was the most accomplished in American post war history. Those who can’t grok to that were simply not paying attention.

[Esox_Lucius]

@Measure_for_Measure

Face it, Obama’s first congress was the most accomplished in American post war history.

All while dealing with not just a recession, but a genuine, gut-churning economic meltdown, not to mention an obstructionist House dedicated to defeating him rather than governing. I would have thought a foreign socialist marxist fascist communist muslim atheist Kenyan terrorist would be made of lesser stuff.

[Esox_Lucius]

@Ravenman

Things like inaugural balls are not legitimate government expenses, so the funds have to be raised to pay for those. The government does pick up the tab for the official swearing-in, like for construction of the stage, security, and probably the porta-potty rentals specifically for that event.

Thanks. Ejumacated.