PDA

View Full Version : Obama Supporters Getting Perks



duane1969
01-19-2012, 10:09 AM
An investigation by the Center for Public Integrity has found that a significant portion of Obama's financial supporters have earned some nice perks thanks to the Obama administration.

Article about the report
http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/19/10186016-obamas-elite-fundraisers-receive-plenty-of-perks

The actual report
http://www.iwatchnews.org/2012/01/19/7897/obama-rainmakers-enjoy-white-house-invites-appointments-and-contracts

Star_Cards
01-19-2012, 10:48 AM
this is rather disappointing after one of his campaign topics was cutting down lobbyist and this sort of thing.

It's just another reason why we desperately need campaign finance reform.

tsjct
01-19-2012, 10:53 AM
I see it as both parties do it so nothing wrong with it. If someone can get ahead by doing a little payoff who really cares.

Star_Cards
01-19-2012, 10:58 AM
I see it as both parties do it so nothing wrong with it. If someone can get ahead by doing a little payoff who really cares.

wow. I think it's a huge problem no matter what parties do it. The federal government has all of these employment laws and regulations when it comes to who you can hire and what you can ask and yet top officials are able to hire people based off of what favors. It's a very blurry line between favors and bribes in my opinion.

tsjct
01-19-2012, 10:59 AM
wow. I think it's a huge problem no matter what parties do it. The federal government has all of these employment laws and regulations when it comes to who you can hire and what you can ask and yet top officials are able to hire people based off of what favors. It's a very blurry line between favors and bribes in my opinion.

yes but it goes to the saying "Its not what you know its who you know". I do not see a problem with getting perks for a little payoff. This goes on in the business world everyday.

ensbergcollector
01-19-2012, 11:03 AM
yes but it goes to the saying "Its not what you know its who you know". I do not see a problem with getting perks for a little payoff. This goes on in the business world everyday.

yeah, and murders take place every day as well. Just because something is common, does not make it right or ok.

tsjct
01-19-2012, 11:18 AM
yeah, and murders take place every day as well. Just because something is common, does not make it right or ok.

thats a great comparison LOL:rolleyes:

ensbergcollector
01-19-2012, 11:21 AM
thats a great comparison LOL:rolleyes:

obviously an overexaggeration but to say something is ok just because it goes on all the time is crazy talk. You are putting forth the idea that commonality equals acceptable. That is wrong.

duane1969
01-19-2012, 11:27 AM
I see it as both parties do it so nothing wrong with it. If someone can get ahead by doing a little payoff who really cares.

People should not be able to buy positions in government.

angel0430
01-19-2012, 11:31 AM
As long as it is not illegal I do not have any isssues with this. It happens all the time and we all do it all the time. We hook up friends because we know them, we give them discounts if we can, we give them free itmes. It happens all the time and I do not see anything wrong with it. It's who you know.

tsjct
01-19-2012, 11:32 AM
People should not be able to buy positions in government.

I say you have to do what it takes to get ahead these days. If our government is doing it i say let's all do it. It goes on everyday in life whether anyone likes it or not. Its just become a way of life and its here to stay.

habsheaven
01-19-2012, 11:46 AM
I'm not sure what the problem is here.

Are we saying that these Obama bundlers (68 of 350 = 19%) should be automatically EXCLUDED? What does the 81% not getting the perks say about the situation?

Do we honestly expect that these Obama bundlers (250 of 350) would NOT be the ones invited to WH events? What % is the 250 of the total number of invitees to the WH?

The last one is the best, Obama bundlers (30 of 350 = 8%) with "ties" to companies that have or "hope to" conduct business with the government.

Again, are we to expect contributors to political campaigns to be AUTOMATICALLY EXCLUDED from doing business with the WH?

Let's try and get real for once.

AUTaxMan
01-19-2012, 11:53 AM
As long as it is not illegal I do not have any isssues with this. It happens all the time and we all do it all the time. We hook up friends because we know them, we give them discounts if we can, we give them free itmes. It happens all the time and I do not see anything wrong with it. It's who you know.

Yeah, but you don't give your friends perks with my money.

duane1969
01-19-2012, 11:59 AM
As long as it is not illegal I do not have any isssues with this. It happens all the time and we all do it all the time. We hook up friends because we know them, we give them discounts if we can, we give them free itmes. It happens all the time and I do not see anything wrong with it. It's who you know.

Do you "hook up" your friends because they gave you money? This isn't nepotism or cronyism. It is buying political influence.

duane1969
01-19-2012, 12:01 PM
I'm not sure what the problem is here.

Are we saying that these Obama bundlers (68 of 350 = 19%) should be automatically EXCLUDED? What does the 81% not getting the perks say about the situation?

Do we honestly expect that these Obama bundlers (250 of 350) would NOT be the ones invited to WH events? What % is the 250 of the total number of invitees to the WH?

The last one is the best, Obama bundlers (30 of 350 = 8%) with "ties" to companies that have or "hope to" conduct business with the government.

Again, are we to expect contributors to political campaigns to be AUTOMATICALLY EXCLUDED from doing business with the WH?

Let's try and get real for once.

As far as i am concerned 1% is too much. If someone wants to donate to a campaign then I am fine with that. If their donation is secured with the promise of a position or special treatment then I take issue with it.

habsheaven
01-19-2012, 12:03 PM
As far as i am concerned 1% is too much. If someone wants to donate to a campaign then I am fine with that. If their donation is secured with the promise of a position or special treatment then I take issue with it.

I missed the evidence of this in the report. Can you point that out to me?

AUTaxMan
01-19-2012, 12:07 PM
I missed the evidence of this in the report. Can you point that out to me?

The pattern of behavior is evidence. It may not be irrefutable proof, but it is evidence.

duane1969
01-19-2012, 12:19 PM
I missed the evidence of this in the report. Can you point that out to me?

It was in the first two paragraphs of the CPI report. Pretty hard to miss.


As President Barack Obama ramps up his campaign for a second term, many of his top fundraisers are showing how money helps win influence and access to power in Washington.

Dozens of Obama’s elite donors — many of them wealthy business figures — have been appointed to advisory panels and commissions that can play a role in setting government policy. Others have been invited to a range of exclusive White House briefings, holiday parties and splashy social events.

habsheaven
01-19-2012, 12:29 PM
It was in the first two paragraphs of the CPI report. Pretty hard to miss.

I said EVIDENCE. My initial post points out QUITE CLEARLY how the report skews the numbers. You guys are unbelievable.

tsjct
01-19-2012, 12:35 PM
I say Obama did nothing wrong here nor did the people who gave money. People who donate get something in return and it should be that way.

duane1969
01-19-2012, 12:39 PM
I said EVIDENCE. My initial post points out QUITE CLEARLY how the report skews the numbers. You guys are unbelievable.

So we need hard and fast, undeniable evidence for any report to be remotely believable?

Remind me to send a thank you note to HuffPost for making this easy...


The donor, Ed Haddock, the CEO of Full Sail University, a for-profit technical college in Orlando, was set to meet with top aide Pete Rouse, according to the memo title, though when that meeting would take place is not clear. Haddock served on the Obama for America National Finance Committee and was a "bundler" for president during his 2008 run for the office, helping raise more than $200,000. He was viewed by the memo's author Jessica Clark, the Obama campaign's finance director in Florida, as a key figure for the Obama campaign in that critical state.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/13/obama-campaign-arm-advise_n_875986.html

If you need exact hard evidence then it isn't hard to find that either. The list of Obama supporters who have gotten positions and special treatment is long and well documented.

habsheaven
01-19-2012, 12:45 PM
So we need hard and fast, undeniable evidence for any report to be remotely believable?

Remind me to send a thank you note to HuffPost for making this easy...



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/13/obama-campaign-arm-advise_n_875986.html

If you need exact hard evidence then it isn't hard to find that either. The list of Obama supporters who have gotten positions and special treatment is long and well documented.

My point is, what do you say about the 282 Obama bundlers that DID NOT get any benefit? THAT LIST IS LONGER!!

Star_Cards
01-19-2012, 12:46 PM
yes but it goes to the saying "Its not what you know its who you know". I do not see a problem with getting perks for a little payoff. This goes on in the business world everyday.

I get that it's a who you know world. I'm not naive to think that doesn't matter, but politicians shouldn't be able to place people in jobs because they were given money.

Star_Cards
01-19-2012, 12:48 PM
As long as it is not illegal I do not have any isssues with this. It happens all the time and we all do it all the time. We hook up friends because we know them, we give them discounts if we can, we give them free itmes. It happens all the time and I do not see anything wrong with it. It's who you know.

you're comparing a political position being bought to me hooking a friend up with extra fries if I happen to work at mcDonalds?

To the people that think this is okay... do you think what rod blagojevich was convicted of was okay and he shouldn't have lost his job or been punished?

habsheaven
01-19-2012, 12:49 PM
I get that it's a who you know world. I'm not naive to think that doesn't matter, but politicians shouldn't be able to place people in jobs because they were given money.

I assume you would like the politician to give the job to the most qualified person, right? What if that person is a donor? Where in this report does it show that the people benefitting are not qualified? Where does it show that they bought positions?

duane1969
01-19-2012, 12:52 PM
My point is, what do you say about the 282 Obama bundlers that DID NOT get any benefit? THAT LIST IS LONGER!!

I already responded to that. I said that even 1% getting special treatment is wrong. Our government should not be for sale to the highest bidder/biggest donator.

I work in education and one of the biggest problems I see is people getting jobs because of who they know and not what they know. The net result is people who have no idea how to do their jobs, much less do a good job. And since these people got their job by giving a donation (bribe) then they are equally open to giving special treatment to others for a "donation".

Corruption begets corruption.

Star_Cards
01-19-2012, 12:55 PM
I'm not sure what the problem is here.

Are we saying that these Obama bundlers (68 of 350 = 19%) should be automatically EXCLUDED? What does the 81% not getting the perks say about the situation?

Do we honestly expect that these Obama bundlers (250 of 350) would NOT be the ones invited to WH events? What % is the 250 of the total number of invitees to the WH?

The last one is the best, Obama bundlers (30 of 350 = 8%) with "ties" to companies that have or "hope to" conduct business with the government.

Again, are we to expect contributors to political campaigns to be AUTOMATICALLY EXCLUDED from doing business with the WH?

Let's try and get real for once.

I don't think that any contributor should be excluded, but it does raise some concerns in my opinion. I also agree that it goes on all the time. That's actually why I think they need to reform campaign finance and come up with a better way than the current system.

There are tons of hoops that companies have to jump through to hiring when it comes to sex, race, nationality and so on. Politicians should be upheld to the same standards if they aren't currently.

habsheaven
01-19-2012, 12:59 PM
I already responded to that. I said that even 1% getting special treatment is wrong. Our government should not be for sale to the highest bidder/biggest donator.

I work in education and one of the biggest problems I see is people getting jobs because of who they know and not what they know. The net result is people who have no idea how to do their jobs, much less do a good job. And since these people got their job by giving a donation (bribe) then they are equally open to giving special treatment to others for a "donation".

Corruption begets corruption.

And I will ask you again. Where is the evidence of this "special treatment"? You cannot claim that 19% getting perks and 81% NOT getting perks is evidence.

duane1969
01-19-2012, 01:01 PM
I don't think that any contributor should be excluded, but it does raise some concerns in my opinion. I also agree that it goes on all the time. That's actually why I think they need to reform campaign finance and come up with a better way than the current system.
There are tons of hoops that companies have to jump through to hiring when it comes to sex, race, nationality and so on. Politicians should be upheld to the same standards if they aren't currently.

I have always supported a "pool". Everyone donates to a general pool and the poll is divided equally between candidate.

habsheaven
01-19-2012, 01:02 PM
I don't think that any contributor should be excluded, but it does raise some concerns in my opinion. I also agree that it goes on all the time. That's actually why I think they need to reform campaign finance and come up with a better way than the current system.

There are tons of hoops that companies have to jump through to hiring when it comes to sex, race, nationality and so on. Politicians should be upheld to the same standards if they aren't currently.

This is the part I do not get. Why can't we assume that the 19% that got the perks were the most qualified and the 81% that didn't weren't the most qualified?

duane1969
01-19-2012, 01:03 PM
And I will ask you again. Where is the evidence of this "special treatment"? You cannot claim that 19% getting perks and 81% NOT getting perks is evidence.

I can claim that top supporters getting perks while lower level supporters not getting support is evidence. The report says that 200 of Obama's top supporters have gotten positions or perks.

Show me how Joe Schmoe from Timbuktu who donated $5 got a perk and I will be convinced that I am wrong.

habsheaven
01-19-2012, 01:03 PM
I have always supported a "pool". Everyone donates to a general pool and the poll is divided equally between candidate.

Who would bother to donate if their donation was being divided equally between the person they backed and the person they opposed?

duane1969
01-19-2012, 01:08 PM
Who would bother to donate if their donation was being divided equally between the person they backed and the person they opposed?

Those who care about the success of the government. Those who only donate to get special perks and appointments to staff obviously wouldn't.

habsheaven
01-19-2012, 01:14 PM
Those who care about the success of the government. Those who only donate to get special perks and appointments to staff obviously wouldn't.

Huh?? How would my $100 being divided among the candidates for campaigning benefit the government?

I must just be idealistic. When I make a political donation, I do it so that the candidate I want to win will have a better chance at doing so. I do it because I believe the candidate I am backing is the best choice for the country. How again does splitting my donation among his/her rivals help the country?

Star_Cards
01-19-2012, 01:18 PM
This is the part I do not get. Why can't we assume that the 19% that got the perks were the most qualified and the 81% that didn't weren't the most qualified?

this true. all of those people could have been the most qualified people. we wouldn't really know one way or the other without being part of the process.

theonedru
01-19-2012, 02:59 PM
Do you "hook up" your friends because they gave you money? This isn't nepotism or cronyism. It is buying political influence.

You mean bribery.....

duane1969
01-19-2012, 03:02 PM
Huh?? How would my $100 being divided among the candidates for campaigning benefit the government?

I must just be idealistic. When I make a political donation, I do it so that the candidate I want to win will have a better chance at doing so. I do it because I believe the candidate I am backing is the best choice for the country. How again does splitting my donation among his/her rivals help the country?

$100 x 1,000,000 people = $100,000,000

It is more about civic duty than being motivated by self-benefit. Knowing that your donation went towards forwarding the democratic process and ensuring that the best candidate won instead of "he who has the most money wins" would be the point.

Take money out of the equation and you will see candidates speaking the truth about the issues instead of saying what their top contributors want to hear.

habsheaven
01-19-2012, 03:23 PM
$100 x 1,000,000 people = $100,000,000

It is more about civic duty than being motivated by self-benefit. Knowing that your donation went towards forwarding the democratic process and ensuring that the best candidate won instead of "he who has the most money wins" would be the point.

Take money out of the equation and you will see candidates speaking the truth about the issues instead of saying what their top contributors want to hear.

This makes sense. Limit campaign spending to such a low amount that donors are irrelevant. Pooling donations on the other hand is completely illogical. No one would donate if that were the case. Civic duty or not.