TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Candidate Expenses
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Candidate Expenses  

post #1 of 52
10/23/08 at 8:14am
Thread Starter 
Lets stick to actual expenses as part of the campaign here:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php?cycle=2008
This is the best link I can find to a fairly non-partisan look at their funding and expenses
post #2 of 52
10/23/08 at 10:11am
I never knew Obama Opted out in using tax payers moneys
post #3 of 52
10/23/08 at 10:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazycatlover View Post
I never knew Obama Opted out in using tax payers moneys
That's a few big issues you've missed out on. The MSM has been helping you decide who to vote for, and you didn't even realize it.
post #4 of 52
10/23/08 at 11:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
That's a few big issues you've missed out on. The MSM has been helping you decide who to vote for, and you didn't even realize it.
And your point is?

The msm has nothing to do with my vote, it is the candidates and their views that influencing my decision and it is me that is deciding no one else.
I'm sure we all have missed out on a thing or two in this election. I certainly don't see anything wrong with a candidate not taking money from the tax payers. I have heard something about the money excepted but I didn't really feel it was as important as who I think would be best for the job. To me it looks better on Obama that he is not taking tax payer moneys weather he is using more money then agreed on or not. Which by the way I did know even before the last debate where Mccain brought it up. I just didn't know all the details and at least he is not taking it out of our pockets. I do agree that they should have the same amount to spend, regardless of my feeling on that it would not have influenced my vote. The candidates ability to run this country, get us out of the mess we are in, who they chose as vice president and their ability to run the country if need be do influence it. There are things I like about Mccain better but what I like about Obama over takes that.
post #5 of 52
10/23/08 at 12:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazycatlover View Post
And your point is?.
My point would be that you not knowing McCain was a POW for 5 years and not knowing that BHO had opted out of taking federal funding for the election sounded like you get your political news from the MSM and don't dig deeper than what you hear or read from them. Both of those are basis facts about the candidates. Knowing where each candidates funding comes from should be an issue that everyone would look into on their own.

Me, I like the deeper stuff. Like how he spent millions upon millions on TV ads. He could've prevented us from having to bail out a few banks with that chunk of change.
post #6 of 52
10/23/08 at 12:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
My point would be that you not knowing McCain was a POW for 5 years and not knowing that BHO had opted out of taking federal funding for the election sounded like you get your political news from the MSM and don't dig deeper than what you hear or read from them. Both of those are basis facts about the candidates. Knowing where each candidates funding comes from should be an issue that everyone would look into on their own.

Me, I like the deeper stuff. Like how he spent millions upon millions on TV ads. He could've prevented us from having to bail out a few banks with that chunk of change.

Sorry but I never said that I didn't know Mccain was a POW I was fully aware of that. Yes and Obama did spend a lot more on his campaign and I was aware of that as well. I would have to disagree though though because the bail out would still have to happen if obama donated all that money im not even convinced that it would have even helped one bank. THe money he has spent is no where near 700 billion not even 1 billion and I could say the same about Mccain if he sold all 6 of his houses. Although I don't feel that way but to me it is similar to you saying if Obama donated that campaign money. Again I find nothing wrong with someone not taking tax payers money.

And just because I was not aware of the exact details although I did know enough on one issue doesn't mean I don't like to look deeper into things. I find it a little inconsiderate that someone would assume something based off of a comment.
post #7 of 52
10/23/08 at 12:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
My point would be that you not knowing McCain was a POW for 5 years and not knowing that BHO had opted out of taking federal funding for the election sounded like you get your political news from the MSM and don't dig deeper than what you hear or read from them. Both of those are basis facts about the candidates. Knowing where each candidates funding comes from should be an issue that everyone would look into on their own.

Me, I like the deeper stuff. Like how he spent millions upon millions on TV ads. He could've prevented us from having to bail out a few banks with that chunk of change.
But it isn't his money to bail out banks. All candidates have to do FEC reporting telling exactly how they spent the money. The contributions given to candidates have rules. He can't just give it to whomever or whoever. Now THAT would be dishonest. His supporter gave him the money to use on the election and he is honoring thier wishes. It is a crazy large amount.
post #8 of 52
10/23/08 at 12:28pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazycatlover View Post
Sorry but I never said that I didn't know Mccain was a POW I was fully aware of that.
I think she is talking about this quote about the debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazycatlover View Post
Did anyone notice that Mccain was kinda walking funny? HE kinda looked like a robot to me.
Anyway... back to spending! Lets not get this thrown into the MOAT or worse please!
post #9 of 52
10/23/08 at 12:55pm
I don't understand how me saying Mccain walked like robot turns into I don't know he was a pow I don't think he always walks that way I just thought it was funny. There really was no offense meant by that comment I was trying to lighten things up I wasn't trying to criticize him for it if it did offend then Im sorry.

Regardless I agree that what Obama has earned is an insane amount and although I am for him I really wish that he would take the high road and make it fair by spending the same as Mccaine although sometimes it is hard to say what is fair because one my have had an advantage over the other in the beginning and the extra money can help even that out. I am not saying one did or who did or didn't I just feel like there is a lot more to consider then just how much money is spent on whether it is fair or not.
My point is it will never be completely even, even if the same amount was spent by each candidate. In a fair and even world Joe the plumber should be able to run for president and have a chance however not ever one has the means to do so. Now I am not saying Joe the plumber should or would I'm using him as an example for an average American.

One thing do wish is that both candidates would have to disclose %100 of what moneys were spent, on which I see neither is at 100.
post #10 of 52
10/23/08 at 1:00pm
I did hear one computer tech talking about how brilliant Obama was to use the internet to get contributions.

As for being a POW, I haven't known what that has to do with anything since it was first mentioned weeks ago. Is this a requirement to be a good President?
post #11 of 52
10/23/08 at 1:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
I did hear one computer tech talking about how brilliant Obama was to use the internet to get contributions.
The internet is very popular and could be one reason why he has done so well.
post #12 of 52
10/23/08 at 1:26pm
I want to clarify the article in case it wasn't obvious. This covers the entire campaign period, which includes when they were in the primaries.

After this is all over, I'm sure that the system will be reformed. Obama raised a record amount of money this election. The contributions to Obama tell me 1 thing. That in spite of the current economy and the financial hardships that your average person is suffering from right now, a lot of people really, really like him. His average donation was under $100. That's a lot of people chipping in a little bit at a time.
post #13 of 52
10/23/08 at 3:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany View Post
I want to clarify the article in case it wasn't obvious. This covers the entire campaign period, which includes when they were in the primaries.

After this is all over, I'm sure that the system will be reformed. Obama raised a record amount of money this election. The contributions to Obama tell me 1 thing. That in spite of the current economy and the financial hardships that your average person is suffering from right now, a lot of people really, really like him. His average donation was under $100. That's a lot of people chipping in a little bit at a time.
Yes, a lot of people like him, but... I think a lot of those donations were simply expressions of "anti-Bush" sentiment, which has evolved into an "anti-Republican" stance for many people during this election season.
post #14 of 52
10/23/08 at 3:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
Yes, a lot of people like him, but... I think a lot of those donations were simply expressions of "anti-Bush" sentiment, which has evolved into an "anti-Republican" stance for many people during this election season.

That is very true. I think we need to look at the candidates for who they are more then what political group they belong to.
post #15 of 52
10/23/08 at 5:40pm
Looks like there's already an investigation into the source of a number of BHO's donations.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/..._to_obama.html

The Republican National Committee (RNC) today filed a supplement to its complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against the Obama for America campaign addressing its acceptance of foreign national and excessive contributions, donations from unknown sources, and demonstrated lack of oversight or concern for compliance with the law. The complaint demonstrates that the Obama campaign has failed to comply with federal campaign finance law in its fundraising. RNC Chief Counsel Sean Cairncross released the following statement today concerning the supplement to the complaint:


"Based on numerous press accounts that have come to light since our initial filing in early October, it is clear that the Obama for America campaign is operating outside of the law. The complete and total lack of any control mechanisms within the Obama campaign's fundraising operation has undermined any confidence in their ability to curtail excessive, foreign, and fraudulent contributions and demands immediate attention from the Federal Election Commission (FEC)."


THIS could be the largest mistake in US political history. It could overshadow Watergate.
post #16 of 52
10/23/08 at 8:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazycatlover View Post
I never knew Obama Opted out in using tax payers moneys
I have mentioned it several times in this forum. Obama broke his word and McCain kept his word. John McCain is accepting public financing.
Even after Obama went back on his word, McCain kept his word.
post #17 of 52
10/23/08 at 8:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazycatlover View Post
And your point is?

The msm has nothing to do with my vote, it is the candidates and their views that influencing my decision and it is me that is deciding no one else.
I'm sure we all have missed out on a thing or two in this election. I certainly don't see anything wrong with a candidate not taking money from the tax payers. I have heard something about the money excepted but I didn't really feel it was as important as who I think would be best for the job. To me it looks better on Obama that he is not taking tax payer moneys weather he is using more money then agreed on or not. Which by the way I did know even before the last debate where Mccain brought it up. I just didn't know all the details and at least he is not taking it out of our pockets. I do agree that they should have the same amount to spend, regardless of my feeling on that it would not have influenced my vote. The candidates ability to run this country, get us out of the mess we are in, who they chose as vice president and their ability to run the country if need be do influence it. There are things I like about Mccain better but what I like about Obama over takes that.
The point is very clear, he broke his word. If he broke his word before even being elected what do you think he will do if elected?
post #18 of 52
10/23/08 at 8:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
I did hear one computer tech talking about how brilliant Obama was to use the internet to get contributions.

As for being a POW, I haven't known what that has to do with anything since it was first mentioned weeks ago. Is this a requirement to be a good President?

Especially, when you have that website set in such a way as to accept any and all donations from wherever and whomever.
post #19 of 52
10/23/08 at 8:18pm
It just shows to me what an innovative and bright man he really is.
post #20 of 52
10/23/08 at 8:20pm
What a cheater he is, is more what I call it.
post #21 of 52
10/23/08 at 8:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany View Post
I want to clarify the article in case it wasn't obvious. This covers the entire campaign period, which includes when they were in the primaries.

After this is all over, I'm sure that the system will be reformed. Obama raised a record amount of money this election. The contributions to Obama tell me 1 thing. That in spite of the current economy and the financial hardships that your average person is suffering from right now, a lot of people really, really like him. His average donation was under $100. That's a lot of people chipping in a little bit at a time.


http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/&#...NALRELEASE.PDF

Quote:
If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?
Answer by Barack Obama

Quote:
Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold's (DWI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (r- AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.
McCain agreed and is accepting Public Financing. Barack Obama was lying through his teeth, his word means nothing, all the words he said above were lies.

This is the man, Barack Obama, that some people will trust to keep his word to lower taxes and do what is best for this country.
post #22 of 52
10/23/08 at 8:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I have mentioned it several times in this forum. Obama broke his word and McCain kept his word. John McCain is accepting public financing.
Even after Obama went back on his word, McCain kept his word.
Ok I was thinking this whole time for some reason it was they both were not going to accept contributions from the public for some reason and that their was a cap on what they could spend but it sounds like because Mccain excepted government financing that their was a cap and this is why he wanted Obama to do it as well and it was such a big deal to him when Obama decided not to take the tax payers moneys.
I was a bit confused since Mccain has been taking contributions but regardless. Am I understanding this better?

I do think it is a good thing Obama is not taking moneys from the government I just think they should have made an agreement on how much money they could accept from contributions. I guess in my mind that made more sense to me so maybe that is why I though that is what was going on. Except Obama changed his mind or went back on his word.
post #23 of 52
10/23/08 at 9:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post

The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (r- AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.


McCain agreed and is accepting Public Financing. Barack Obama was lying through his teeth, his word means nothing, all the words he said above were lies.

This is the man, Barack Obama, that some people will trust to keep his word to lower taxes and do what is best for this country.
THat is funny the quote you posted never really said he would this it what the quote you quoted says

Quote by Obama
The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (r- AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

so in other words it sounds like he said that he would TRY TO come to an agreement to preserve a publicly funded campaign. Maybe this was a sneaky tactic maybe not but he still never said that he would unless you have another quote that says something different. Im not saying this quote makes it any better Im just making an observation. Some could look at it as an excuse for Obama and some could look at it as a sneaky tactic. Whos to say?
post #24 of 52
10/23/08 at 10:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I have mentioned it several times in this forum. Obama broke his word and McCain kept his word. John McCain is accepting public financing.
Even after Obama went back on his word, McCain kept his word.
I'd rather they not waste the taxpayer money on campaigning. Does this mean my money is supporting the McCain campaign?? Eww!

That's a very interesting website, that's for sure - good find Eithne!
post #25 of 52
10/24/08 at 3:09am
The Republicans are just sore that Barack raised so much money. They had no idea he would.
McCain can still get money through the RNC so it is not as if ALL of his money is taxpayers. I don't want to give my money for a campaign either.
The Republicans notoriously have had a lot more money than the Democrats and could outspend them 2 to 1 or more. This year the tables are turned.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the...aint_on_o.html

There is nothing much to the RNC and their allegations about the elections. McCain had to return some money as did Obama. Obama has raised 200 million dollars from small donors who don't have to release their names.
post #26 of 52
10/24/08 at 3:33am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CC12 View Post
Obama has raised 200 million dollars from small donors who don't have to release their names.
And now the names have been released, Adolf Hitler (who lists his job as leader of the Third Reich) gave money meaning the system didn't work. It also means that people could have given under the threshold and given several times to go over the threshold.
post #27 of 52
10/24/08 at 3:34am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarahp View Post
I'd rather they not waste the taxpayer money on campaigning.
I realise campaigns cost a lot more in the US compared to Canada, but personally I would prefer campaigns are not based on which stakeholder gave you the most money and based on your real ideas for running the country than keeping certain groups happy because they are financing your campaign.
post #28 of 52
10/24/08 at 5:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarahp View Post
I'd rather they not waste the taxpayer money on campaigning. Does this mean my money is supporting the McCain campaign?? Eww!
Not unless you checked the box on your Federal tax return, and since you're not a US Citizen you don't have that option.

Quote:
Originally Posted by icklemiss21 View Post
And now the names have been released, Adolf Hitler (who lists his job as leader of the Third Reich) gave money meaning the system didn't work. It also means that people could have given under the threshold and given several times to go over the threshold.
It reeks of dishonesty. When all the safeguards have been turned off to eliminate the very things that verify someone is actually eligible to donate, someone is responsible. The Campaign Treasurer will likely get the blame, but the whole campaign is tainted.
post #29 of 52
10/24/08 at 6:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I have mentioned it several times in this forum. Obama broke his word and McCain kept his word. John McCain is accepting public financing.
Even after Obama went back on his word, McCain kept his word.
Obama always said that he would do so if McCain did so. At the time he opted out of public financing, McCain was raising contributions from non public sources. So neither candidate stuck to their original agreement.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=91703936

Quote:
Earlier, Obama had said he would participate in public financing if his Republican rival, Arizona Sen. John McCain, did the same.

On Thursday, however, Obama said it was evident that McCain and the Republican National Committee were raising large contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest political action committees.

Obama campaign lawyer Robert Bauer said he met with McCain lawyers to discuss how the two campaigns could operate in the public financing system, but that the two sides could not come to an agreement.
So does this make both of them liers?
post #30 of 52
10/24/08 at 7:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by CC12 View Post
The Republicans are just sore that Barack raised so much money. They had no idea he would.
McCain can still get money through the RNC so it is not as if ALL of his money is taxpayers. I don't want to give my money for a campaign either.
The Republicans notoriously have had a lot more money than the Democrats and could outspend them 2 to 1 or more. This year the tables are turned.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the...aint_on_o.html

There is nothing much to the RNC and their allegations about the elections. McCain had to return some money as did Obama. Obama has raised 200 million dollars from small donors who don't have to release their names.
That is as good of an excuse as any for your candidate lack of integrity.

It all comes down to, no one can spin Obama's words, in print, that he answered on the questionnaire that he would accept public financing if his opponent did also. McCain did accept and Obama went back on his word. Total lack of integrity on Obama's fault and no one can spin that away.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
This thread is locked  
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Candidate Expenses