Well, those who were the loudest proponents of campaign finance reform did seem to pretty much say that money was a corrupting influence.
With any luck this kind of fund raising by Obama will get those elements on the left that backed CFR to get back in touch with their commitment to free speech. On the other hand, its likely to win more right wing backers for CFR.
This seems like as good a place as any to ask this question: Can someone explain the difference between accepting public financing like McCain apparently did, and denying it like Obama did? Is it as simple as just betting on how much money you can raise, comparing it to what you get from public financing, and going with it if you can’t raise that much, and refusing it if you can raise more?
Also confusing me is the fact that you can still contribute to McCain’s campaign through his web site. Yes I went there. Yes, it was a terrifying experience. The notion that people are out there going to johnmccain.com to create their personalized “I AM JOE THE PLUMBER” signs makes me a wee bit queasy. 
So anyone have a simple explanation (or a link to one)?
I think that’s McCain’s point. With all those small donors, there’s no oversight to make sure that the donations are legal.
Actually, when you make a small donation to Obama’s campaign through the website, they record all of your information, including employer etc. This is partly so that when thresholds for reporting are met, they will know. I have every confidence that the campaign keeps that information for as long as it is pertinent. They have made a point of looking for and returning or giving to charity improper donations and are tracking and reporting contribution bundlers to a greater extent than strictly required.
But with all those small donors, who cares if they’re not legal? The problem with campaign finance is the single donor with a sack full of money looking for something in return.
Well, if you don’t keep track of who they are, then what is to stop the person with the sack of cash from making many small donations and then telling the candidate, “Hey, I gave you a sack of cash, you owe me”?
I laughed.
I’m trying to figure out how the candidate saying “Thank you for the contributions, but no, I do not,” can backfire. If the large donation wasn’t specifically solicited, there is no reciprocal obligation.
Well, for one thing the donor could threaten to reveal the candidate had been receiving donations anonymously which were really from one source. If they structured it right, the real donor would be protected and enough documentation would exist to show that the donations were shady.
:eek:
As long as it’s good for Obama, that’s the only thing that matters, right? Are you employing any kind of consistent standard here? I can’t find it. There’s more to campaign finance laws than preventing outright bribery. It’s about knowing who the donors are, for one thing. The whole issue with the donations the New York Times found, for example, is that it appeared some donors were getting around the $2,300 limit by pretending to be multiple people working for “Doodad Pro” or “Good Will,” for example. If you don’t know who the donors are, how do you know if the donors are staying within those limits?
I don’t think there’s any large pattern of illegal donations here - like I said in an earlier thread, I think for the most part, people figured “oh, I’m donating online, I don’t need to give my real name” - but some people may be gaming the system. Why shouldn’t that be stopped, even if they’re giving a few thousand rather than millions?
Seems like that would take a lot of work to make it look like the candidate was complicit, and it’d be easy enough to confirm that it was just someone trying to screw with him or her.
I’ve made one post on this subject, so by definition I’m consistent.
But to your point: I’m starting with the assumption that the intent in controlling campaign financing is not to employ bookkeepers, but to prevent corruption and bribery. (and implicitly, assumption #2 is that no one would be corrupted by $200.) So if all donations are below the corruptability threshold, then there is no good reason to control campaign finance.
They don’t need to prove it. Remember, they just need to sow doubt. Many people are ready to think the worst of the other side, and many are ready to think the worst of anyone running for office.
My mother is firmly convinced that both sides are corrupt to the same extent. It seems to be her version of fair and balanced thinking. She has a conviction that if she doesn’t know that one sided has done anything wrong, it is just that she has not yet found out about it. Many share this attitude.
What is the corruptability threshold, then? The $200 and $2,300 numbers are more or less arbitrary, so I’m not really concerned with that. But what I think McCain was saying is that with so many donors, it’ll be hard to know if everything is really above board. And to some minor degree, as concerns the internet fundraising, he may have a point. There’s some risk that people could take advantage of this anonymity and game the system.
If you can define a plausible “game” that would be played with thousands of small donations, I will readily concede the point. Not being defiant; I just genuinely can’t think of a downside to lots of small donations.
There’s nothing wrong with lots of small donations. It’s a good thing, and McCain is primarily casting random aspersions. I’m just saying that if nobody’s keeping track, you can do the same crooked things with big numbers of small donations that you can with large donations.
The RNC asked for the investigation one week after the FEC "sent a letter to Sen. John McCain’s campaign treasurer Sept. 30 demanding the candidate turn over more information about ‘contributions that appear to exceed the limits.’
The letter is accompanied by a nine-page list showing scores of overages from McCain’s August campaign finance report, including nearly $13,000 from Texas rancher Ray R. Barrett Jr.; $9,200 from an Iraqi security consultant, H. Carter Andress; and $5,000 from Joseph F. Davolio, an executive at a major national liquor, beer and wine distributor.
‘Please inform the Commission of your corrective action immediately in writing and provide photocopies of any refund checks and/or letters reattributing or redesignating the contributions in question,’ the letter from the FEC’s senior campaign finance analyst, Leah S. Palmer, says. ‘The acceptance of excessive contributions is a serious problem.’"
Sounds like it may be a case of “they started it!”
But please do remember, none of the donations are anonymous. Anonymous donations are not allowed even if you do not take government matching funds. Every donation, not matter how small, is tracked. The source of donations smaller than $200 are not published, but the campaign has that information and the FEC can audit it.
If they’re made by people using obviously fake names and hiding their identities, the donations are basically anonymous.
Online donations are made with a credit card. Even if I put my information in as “Heywood Ublowme,” the credit card number will be real. And linked to my real name and my real address. There is no way to pay cash through the website, and you cannot use Paypal. So there is no “basically anonymous” donations, unless people set up a donation by proxy system. But if we’re talking funds under $200, why go through the effort?