Obama Fundraising, High And Low

First, from an e-mail Barack Obama sent to supporters today:

Refusing money from PACs and Washington lobbyists makes this campaign different in one very important respect.

We are not beholden to anyone but you.

We've rejected the traditional Washington fundraising strategy -- including countless dinners hosted by lobbyists -- and put our trust in millions of Americans owning a piece of this campaign.

Senator Clinton and Senator McCain have a different approach.

Both have accepted millions from lobbyists and special interests, and both have relied on high dollar donors for the majority of their funding.

This campaign is different, and I'm looking forward to supporters like you joining me for a different kind of fundraising dinner.

If you make a donation in any amount between now and 11:59 pm EDT on Monday, March 31st, you could join me and three other supporters for an intimate dinner for five:

And now an invitation to a private, high-dollar fundraiser on April 8, where hosts are expected to raise $25,000.

Comments

Is this fair? I don't see an inconsistency. Of course he has rich donors, and of course the rich donors hold fundraising dinners. His point is that he doesn't take lobbyist money or special interest money, i.e., money from groups. Nothing you're posting contradicts that.

Posted by alex | March 26, 2008 3:01 PM

I guess it's a nice "gotcha" Mark, but are the hosts lobbyists?

It would seem to me that at the end of the day, it's hard to discount the fact that Obama's raised a significant portion of his money from people giving $200 or less.

Posted by Jake | March 26, 2008 3:03 PM

marc you are getting subtler and subtler ain't you!

this is blogger journalism?

Posted by lfo | March 26, 2008 3:04 PM

-1 x 1,000,000

Posted by daniel | March 26, 2008 3:05 PM

I'm with the other comments so far- are these people lobbyists? I know Greg Craig works for the campaign but don't know any other names at a glance. If they are not lobbyists and it isn't a PAC dinner, how are these statements inconsistent?

Posted by greg | March 26, 2008 3:12 PM

There's contradiction here at all...

Marc, I'm afraid that you've fallen into the cycle trap that is not uncommon in the blogosphere.

Some supporters of a candidate accuse you of bias.

Then you, understandably get irritated by this, which leads you to be more snarky toward the supporters of that candidate. And toward that campaign to some extent, too.

This then reinforces the sense that you're biased among that candidate's supporters.

The supporters get increasingly frustrated by your coverage.

You then kick the snark factor up another notch.

And it goes on and on.

So, look, how 'bout this...

I'm an Obama supporter. And I don't think you're biased.

So, let's reset the game clock, shall we?

And by the way, the Tuzla story is still a big deal, and your lack of coverage of this is evidence of your bias in favor of Hillary ;-)

Posted by Vermonter | March 26, 2008 3:17 PM

Dear Clinton Campaign:

Is there any truth to the rumor that Chelsea is on full salary and benefits at her 'day job' at a hedge fund while she is campaigning for you full time?

If so, is that a violation of campaign finance laws that ban corporate contributions.

Please advise.

Posted by D | March 26, 2008 3:25 PM

D has a good point. I'd like to know the answer to that myself. Also, is Chelsea benefiting from the current tax loophole that hedge fund managers are benefiting from?

Posted by KathyF | March 26, 2008 3:39 PM

Obama is so disingenuous. He takes money that's bundled by lobbyists in the hundreds of millions of dollars, he hires lobbyists, he goes to events sponsored by lobbyists, but he doesn't take money from that extremely narrow category of people who are registered as professional lobbyists under the new ethics rules.

Look at Obama's votes on behalf of Ethanol or nuclear power or Chicago banks. He also doesn't take money from those lobbyists, just takes money raised by those folks, at events sponsored by those folks. So of course his votes in favor of those guys show that not accepting direct contributions from their 10 or so professional lobbyists while accepting all the money they direct his way works brilliantly. Yes, this truly is change you can believe in.

I call Obama supporters intellectually lazy, but I guess you could also call them stupid.

Posted by Wowsas | March 26, 2008 3:44 PM

Wowsas,

All insults aside, even Barack Obama has described his taking no funds from registered federal lobbyists an "imperfect symbol."

But, while imperfect, it is not empty. And Obama discloses his bundlers, has successfully advocated for ethical reforms in both the IL state senate and the US Senate -- including the creation of http://www.usaspending.gov/

He has done far more to make good on the promise of increased transparency in government than most politicians.

Does he make voting decisions that are favorable to his IL constituents? Sure. That's his job. Is he perfect? Of course not.

But, he's far better in this regard than most.

Posted by Vermonter | March 26, 2008 3:53 PM

Looks to me like Obama's doing just fine with us Jews. I'm pretty sure that's Marc's point.

Posted by gussie | March 26, 2008 4:00 PM

Wowsas said... He takes money that's bundled by lobbyists in the hundreds of millions of dollars, he hires lobbyists, he goes to events sponsored by lobbyists,

I'm willing to give you a listen, but you're going to have to back up each of these statements with facts.

Where is this "money that's bundled by lobbyists in the hundreds of millions of dollars" coming from. Which lobbyists specifically? What do you mean by "bundled"? Are you saying that if a state level lobbyist (who Obama can't really help with favors) works on Obama's campaign and collects donations, it's "bundled"? LOTS more info needed here.

He "hires lobbyists?" Like who? Are they federal lobbyists, in a position to ask for payback, or are they state lobbyists? State vs. federal lobbyist is REALLY important here. Again, we need LOTS more info.

And "he goes to events sponsored by lobbyists?" What are these "events"? How does this personally enrich him or his campaign? And again, are they federal level lobbyists working on things where he can have an impact, or state level where he can not?

You've made some BROAD statements. I'll be interested in hearing the details. I hope you take the time to truly explain the basis for each of these statements, and don't just hide behind epithets like "intellectually lazy" or "stupid". After all, that would be intellectually lazy ... or just stupid.

Posted by LFC | March 26, 2008 4:02 PM

Vermonter:

I think you're being naive. I've had to follow the campaigns from a distance over the last month, as work has picked up, and the message that keeps getting picked up in Obama's speeches is that he doesn't take money from lobbyists. He repeats it, he doesn't add context, and he uses it to bash Hillary. Not surprisingly, most Obama supporters I know think that Obama has some radical funding model where he doesn't take any lobbying money.

So ya, I think Obama sucks. Because while he's not technically lying, he might as well be, since he's creating the false impression that he is in fact clean of lobbyist influence.

As for Obama's "ethics reform" that gets so ballyhooed, 1) it was derived from standing Republican proposals which were intended to water down real ethics reform; and 2) as a result, it's much much much much weaker than the real ethics reform that was led by Pelosi et al.

Obama hasn't done squat in the US Senate, except raise a lot of money and pander to special interests (see, e.g., his oh-so-critical vote against the Dems' main bankruptcy bill amendment, which was intended to stop that bill, followed by a meaningless "no" vote on the main bill-- somehow he managed to show up for those 2 votes despite missing most others).

What exactly did he do as a progressive organizer again? I'm beginning to suspect that even that part of his narrative is corrupt.

Posted by Wowsas | March 26, 2008 4:03 PM

Like I said, LFC, you're intellectually lazy. You could look it up next time, but here's a taste.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obamas-k-street-project-2007-03-28.html

Posted by Wowsas | March 26, 2008 4:05 PM

Obama is so disingenuous. He takes money that's bundled by lobbyists in the hundreds of millions of dollars, he hires lobbyists, he goes to events sponsored by lobbyists, but he doesn't take money from that extremely narrow category of people who are registered as professional lobbyists under the new ethics rules.

Source? I know opensecrets.org lists the respective contributions received by each candidate from various industries. Since Obama doesn't accept PAC money, I'd have to guess those statistics reflect bundling. If that's the case, then Obama has raised considerable money from people connected to various industries. However, Obama has also raised considerably more money that Senator Clinton and yet still relies far less on large contributions and bundling. Is Obama immaculate when it comes to campaign finance? No, but he's better than Hillary Clinton -- and that's the point.

I call Obama supporters intellectually lazy, but I guess you could also call them stupid.

I really don't think you want to go down this path; If the exit polls are even remotely accurate, the intellectual wattage of Obama supporters far exceeds that of Clinton supporters.

Posted by asdf | March 26, 2008 4:09 PM

If you make a donation in any amount between now and 11:59 pm EDT on Monday, March 31st, you could join me and three other supporters for an intimate dinner for five:

Sounds cozy!

Posted by Mark Simmons | March 26, 2008 4:09 PM

I can just imagine the Clintons' promise of "intimate dinner" and what would be served....

Just ask Monica.

Posted by D | March 26, 2008 4:18 PM

What exactly did he do as a progressive organizer again? I'm beginning to suspect that even that part of his narrative is corrupt.

Seems like you're intellectually lazy. You could just look it up. Here's a tool you might find helpful: http://www.google.com. But I'm beginning to suspect you're just hoping for a response that you could nitpick.

Posted by lifelong democrat | March 26, 2008 4:18 PM

Wowsas: If you're really interested in Obama's legislative record (and I suspect you're not) here's a good post that wraps that up nicely:

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html

Please read it, and then get back to us on your assertion that "Obama hasn't done squat in the US Senate".

Posted by KathyF | March 26, 2008 4:24 PM

Keep in mind that big donations don't mean "lobbyists" or "special interests". There's nothing contradictory in the fact that he doesn't accept PAC money but still holds fundraising dinners. I'm pretty close to maxed out on contributions now, but I'm just a guy in my mid-20s that likes him as a candidate - at least black tie events are a great place to bring a date (charitable, political, art openings, whatever).

Posted by TH | March 26, 2008 4:34 PM

Like I said, LFC, you're intellectually lazy. You could look it up next time, but here's a taste.

I gave you a much less than 50/50 chance of responding intelligently, and I was right. You just know what you know.

BTW, I just LOVED the article. What a smoking gun!

"He’s like Bill Clinton with no baggage," said Jimmy Williams, of the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers. "He’s got that aura and people are talking about him. You realize you’re in the presence of something incredible. He has broad appeal."

"He won’t take our money but we can go out and campaign for him,” he said. "I’m more than happy to campaign for the guy because the country is in dire need of honest leadership."

Wow! That Obama is a slimeball, ain't he? Having a lobbyist (they're human beings and voters too, you know ... or perhaps you don't know) say that he'll campaign for him (like thousands upon thousands of other non-lobbyist citizens) because "the country is in dire need of honest leadership." Disgusting!

He said that while lobbyists cannot give money to Obama, they can give "policy" and "campaign support." Indeed, K Street denizens have rare policy and national campaign expertise.

Oh ... my ... GOD! Lobbyists are expressing opinions to Obama. The horror! The horror! What must he owe them for their opinions?

Now let's get to the meat of YOUR statements, Wowsas.

YOU said he takes "hundreds of millions" bundled by lobbyists. Since that's pretty much every dollar he's taken in, where's the evidence? I must be stupid since I can't figure out how virtually ALL of his campaign money funneled through lobbyists. Since this is YOUR statement, an intellectual giant such as yourself should have no problem producing the evidence. Where's the beef?

YOU said he "hires lobbyists". I see he talks to them and some campaign for him. Hillary whined early on about a state level lobbyist in Obama's campaign, a man who lobbied for issues for which Obama had ZERO influence. Where are the FEDERAL lobbyists he hired? The ones that have something to gain? And if you can actually find some, you can explain how even though they're hired (which means paid), why would Obama feel further obligated to them? Hello? McFly?

YOU said he goes to events organized by lobbyists. That could mean anything from a policy meeting to a campaign fundraiser to a free golf trip to St. Andrews. What is YOUR definition of these events? I don't know your real name, so I can't Google your definition. C'mon. Put up or shut up.

Shorter Wowsas: "Obama's laps up lobbyist money, but I'm so intellectually superior I just choose not to prove anything I've said."

Posted by LFC | March 26, 2008 4:45 PM

According to the New York Times, Senator Obama has accepted $250 in campaign contributions - have you or any other reporter looked into this?

Link:
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/finances/index.html (Click Finances, then Obama, then the Details tab)

Posted by Ruth | March 26, 2008 4:53 PM

Whoops. Correction: "$250 in campaign contributions from PACs".

Posted by Ruth | March 26, 2008 5:00 PM

Hey Wowsas. Ruth's link shows Obama bringing in less than $200 million. Where are the "hundreds of millions" that were "bundled" by lobbyists? (Cue Jeopardy music)

I guess since I can't figure out how every single dollar he received managed to get "bundled" by lobbyists, I must be intellectually lazy.

Snapperhead.

Posted by LFC | March 26, 2008 5:02 PM

Ruth - haha, that's funny. I saw that on opensecrets as well, I think. I bet they were taken from the same data source; anyway, I wonder what the deal is? Weird... $250 is a drop in the bucket, so you'd think someone would take note of it when compared to numbers like $197,000,000

Posted by socctty | March 26, 2008 5:09 PM

I wonder what the deal is? Weird...

Is it possible that a member of a PAC sent $250 in the name of the PAC rather than as a private citizen, and it hasn't been returned by the campaign yet? I'd hate to be the campaign worker who has to find that single donation among the sea of donations they've received.

Posted by LFC | March 26, 2008 5:23 PM

I hope the 20% of the Clinton supporters that won't vote for Obama when he wins the primary election will go back to being right wing of the Republican party where you belong...

For the other 80%, please get on board with us and help us end this. We know who won this fight, it is time to start the healing and get behind this wonderful candidate! Please take another look at Obama...it isn't like switching teams, we are all Americans. These special interests don't stand a chance against the over 1.2 million small donors like us. Help us grow that database and take be a part of the Calvary that takes America away from those special interests! After all it is all about the Supreme Court Justices, if McCain gets in, we are going to have some pretty tough laws to abide by.

Some people are willing to give up their lives for the good of this country... Hillary cannot even give up her obviously lost nomination for the good of the country...

Posted by Elbram | March 27, 2008 10:01 AM

I think the point is not that Obama is doing anything wrong. But I do believe that he has been misleading the public and has not been called out on it. During one of the Debates, Edwards got to ask him a question, and stated that Obama had taken the most money from insurance companies and HMO's, and Obama spouted some BS like "if an insurance executive is inspired by money of change and donates, his contributions count as being from the insurance industry", and went on about how he is the only one not to take money from lobbyists and PACs. So he basically tries to paint the picture that all of his contributions come from individual supporters, though a huge chunk of his donations come from bundled money. I think it is a joke how Obama gets a pass on this, if Hillary did the same thing it would be different story.

Posted by Steve | March 29, 2008 12:08 PM