• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Obama Raises More Than $70 Million

danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama's campaign raised more than $70 million combined for his re-election and the Democratic Party during the summer, an amount that gives him a clear financial advantage over his Republican rivals even as faces economic and political headwinds.
Click to expand...

As Mitt Romney announced raising 17 million bucks for his campaign this quarter, Obama beats him by 53 million.

It is no secret that Republicans are corporate whores, but it seems to have been a secret that Democrats are also corporate whores. Not any more. The cat is now out of the bag. This is not government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It's government of the money, by the money, and for the money. let's just put all this pretense aside and be honest. A long time ago, we decided that corporations were people, but you know, we just didn't go far enough. So I am writing my congressman and asking him to introduce a resolution to make dollar bills people too, with all the Constitutional rights inherant. And, while we are at it, let's not forget about the real people that are trumped by money in our system. They should count as three fifths of a vote, for the purpose of representation, of course. And let's move the White House to Wall Street too.

Article is here.
 
Last edited:
Well, the Wall Street protest is spreading awareness of the fact that the real power lies in money and the banking system.

Everyone is so hung up on the racial profile of the President. I think it would be nice to see a middle class person running for President. Of course, that's impossible, since you need to have backing of the financial elites in order to have a hope.

The government is for the rich, by the rich.
 
OP's link said:
Obama campaign manager Jim Messina said in an e-mail to supporters that more than 600,000 people donated to the campaign in the most recent quarter, more than the previous three months. He said more than 980,000 people have given money to the campaign, and in the most recent quarter, 98 percent of the donors gave $250 or less, with an average donation of $56.
Click to expand...
Yeah, those Democrats are such corporate whores - not. Remember 2008? Once again Obama is getting his donations from the people instead of where the GOP gets theirs. Be afraid because people giving to a candidate in these numbers during a bad economy indicates deep-rooted support among voters.
 
Personally I think that anyone running for any political position should have a limit on how much they can recieve in donations. $1 million should be more than plenty enough.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Personally I think that anyone running for any political position should have a limit on how much they can recieve in donations. $1 million should be more than plenty enough.
Click to expand...

You're trampling on free speech by doing that.
 
danarhea said:
As Mitt Romney announced raising 17 million bucks for his campaign this quarter, Obama beats him by 53 million.

It is no secret that Republicans are corporate whores, but it seems to have been a secret that Democrats are also corporate whores. Not any more. The cat is now out of the bag. This is not government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It's government of the money, by the money, and for the money. let's just put all this pretense aside and be honest. A long time ago, we decided that corporations were people, but you know, we just didn't go far enough. So I am writing my congressman and asking him to introduce a resolution to make dollar bills people too, with all the Constitutional rights inherant. And, while we are at it, let's not forget about the real people that are trumped by money in our system. They should count as three fifths of a vote, for the purpose of representation, of course. And let's move the White House to Wall Street too.

Article is here.
Click to expand...
Well it has never been a secret that Wall Street has been Obama's biggest donor... just look at what happened with the banks. They got our bailouts -- with virtually no strings attached. I don't know if that is directly affected by money, but just look at the correlation there and in many other places.

Of course it should also be pointed out that many celebrities like to support liberal causes, and celebrities tend to be quite wealthy. Still, it is obvious that a large part of his donations must come from large corporations, just judging by how much he has raised.
 
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
Yeah, those Democrats are such corporate whores - not. Remember 2008? Once again Obama is getting his donations from the people instead of where the GOP gets theirs. Be afraid because people giving to a candidate in these numbers during a bad economy indicates deep-rooted support among voters.
Click to expand...
By that logic you have about 600,000 people donating to him, and 98% of them donated an average of $56 makes about 35 million. So yes, he is raising plenty of money from grass-roots causes but that is only half of his current earnings. And his Wall Street donations have actually dropped off. I am not concerned necessarily that any particular politician is a lap-dog to Wall Street necessarily, but the money in the system WILL in fact allow Wall Street to essentially call a favor from any congressman or senator at any point in time-or they risk not having the money for re election. We need to reform this broken system, I suggest a maximum donation per person/group/company or whatever, any donor can donate the same amount of money. Maybe $500 or $1,000, which would still allow for moderately large donations, but not millions or, god forbid, billions of dollars from one donor.
 
apdst said:
You're trampling on free speech by doing that.
Click to expand...

How? They can still express whatever they want.

Financial caps would even the playing field, and ensure that people are being elected based on platforms and personal merits, not how much publicity and media influence they have.

Also, it would ensure that anyone can run for the Presidency, not just aristocrats or members of big business.
 
Temporal said:
How? They can still express whatever they want.

Financial caps would even the playing field, and ensure that people are being elected based on platforms and personal merits, not how much publicity and media influence they have.

Also, it would ensure that anyone can run for the Presidency, not just aristocrats or members of big business.
Click to expand...
I think that with a limit per donor, anyone could break into national politics (we don't want people with NO political experience running for and winning president anyways). They could do this by raising money in a grass-roots campaign, get a rally and get donors, then you have money to advertise to get more donors, if the people like your message.
 
apdst said:
You're trampling on free speech by doing that.
Click to expand...

No, you're not trampling on free speech by limiting how much someone running for public office can receive from private sources. You would start getting into that if you were limiting what private citizens can do with their own money, but it's perfectly fine with me to cap what politicians can receive. I can't just show up to a hearing and openly bribe my judge, that would be illegal even though I'm a private citizen with first amendment rights.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
The concept of free speech needs to be clearly separated from the concept of spending money.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's not, because if I want to contribute to a political campaign and that campaign has already reached it's limit, I've been denied my chance to participate in the democratic process.
 
apdst said:
Actually, it's not, because if I want to contribute to a political campaign and that campaign has already reached it's limit, I've been denied my chance to participate in the democratic process.
Click to expand...

No, you haven't -- you've been guaranteed precisely the same opportunity to participate as everybody else.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
No, you haven't -- you've been guaranteed precisely the same opportunity to participate as everybody else.
Click to expand...

No, I haven't, because the law would limit how many people get to donate money in support of their favorite candidate. It would eventually create a small group of political insiders that are totally financing all of the candidates, which would go against the whole, "Government of the people, for the people and by the people", idea.
 
apdst said:
No, I haven't, because the law would limit how many people get to donate money in support of their favorite candidate. It would eventually create a small group of political insiders that are totally financing all of the candidates, which would go against the whole, "Government of the people, for the people and by the people", idea.
Click to expand...

You're moving the goal-posts. We're talking about spending limits on campaigns, not caps on donations. If there's a limit to what each campaign can spend, then each candidate gets precisely the same opportunity to participate in the process as the other candidates.
 
apdst said:
Actually, it's not, because if I want to contribute to a political campaign and that campaign has already reached it's limit, I've been denied my chance to participate in the democratic process.
Click to expand...

Voting is your chance to participate in the democratic process.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
You're moving the goal-posts. We're talking about spending limits on campaigns, not caps on donations. If there's a limit to what each campaign can spend, then each candidate gets precisely the same opportunity to participate in the process as the other candidates.
Click to expand...

They're one-in-the-same. If a campaign can only spend $1 million, then it isn't going to be able to take in more than $1 million in donations, which means that some people won't be allowed to donate to the campaign they support.
 
apdst said:
They're one-in-the-same. If a campaign can only spend $1 million, then it isn't going to be able to take in more than $1 million in donations, which means that some people won't be allowed to donate to the campaign they support.
Click to expand...

Which is why the campaign should be publically financed by an impartial electoral commission.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Which is why the campaign should be publically financed by an impartial electoral commission.
Click to expand...

No, I want to say which campaign gets my money. I don't want my tax money going to someone like Obama, or Al Gore, or some other Leftist clown that wants to take my rights away.

There's nothing in the Constitution about this being a government of the government, for the government and by the government.

An impartial electoral commission? And, who pray tell is going to hire those people? The government? Yeah, that's going to work.
 
apdst said:
There's nothing in the Constitution about this being a government of the government, for the government and by the government.
Click to expand...

Nor is there anything in the Constitution about this being a government of the people with money, for the people with money, by the people with money.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Nor is there anything in the Constitution about this being a government of the people with money, for the people with money, by the people with money.
Click to expand...

Obviously, you fail to understand that the money has to come from somewhere and The People would be the obvious source.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom