At the time of writing, in late October 2008, the Barack Obama presidential campaign had raised more the $200 million in small contribution of $200 or less. Such small individual donations are not reported to the FEC, as I noted at the essay:
These small donations do not require public disclosure under FEC guidelines, and the Obama campaign refuses to make public its list of contributors. Obama earlier announced he’d accept public financing if the GOP nominee did the same (and then, of course, broke his pledge in June after realizing he’d far surpass previous fundraising records). So there’s a pattern. By keeping his donor list secret now, the Illinois senator has heightened speculation of financial impropriety. Not only can Obama’s inside operatives organize massive bundling operations outside the law, there are no safeguards against the new “fat cat” contributors who bundle their own cash. Hillary Clinton’s Norman Hsu scandal from late-2007 points to the kind of abuses possible under the current regime. A more serious breach of faith may be taking place right now in the Obama camp.There are rarely ever serious consquences to financial impropriety in campaign fundraising, and with "Mr. Chicago Boy" in the White House, it's common knowledge that this administration is the most corrupt in decades. So I had to literally shake my head in disgust upon reading this statement from the White House:
With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington--while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.Also, just now at Pajamas, "Supreme Court Strikes Down Campaign Finance Laws: A Decisive Blow for the First Amendment."
And of course, here it comes: "Democrats Plan to Push Bill to Limit Impact of Campaign Finance Decision."
1 comments:
Good post and the hypocrisy of the leftist commentators is surpassed only by their ignorance---and in Dahlia Lithwick's case, malicious stupidity.
Prof Bainbridge has a great erudite piece on his blog on how the "corporate person" has been recognized by the SCOTUS since 1885, deriving from the Fourteenth Amendment.
Trashmouths like Keith Odorboy and the Puffington crew can whine as they always do, but there are ample precedents on the decision yesterday and the First Amendment trumps process whores in the DNC who use SEIU as brownshirts and dues collectors.
Post a Comment