Osler's Razor

indeed. that amount is mind boggling. :O am glad to see that the campaign isn't getting lax.

hmmm... will have to read up on that endorsement.
 

That amount is easier to reach if you aren't so concerned about where it comes from or whether the contributions violate the law. Clinton was the first to really understand modern fundraising and Obama appears to use many of Clinton's innovations: bundling to obscure the actual source of money, accepting foreign money, waiting to return obviously ill-gotten money until he gets caught. The money is staggering, these amounts should raise questions by themselves, especially considering how much of it comes off the internet. It should also be troubling to see this kind of spending from a guy who used to think public financing was critical to democracy. Oh, well.
 

Joe--

I think you are wrong. Who Obama learned from is Howard Dean-- he's using the internet to reach a large number of people who each give a relatively small amount.

The assumption that success is because of fraud kind of flies in the face of much of the Republican ideology I hear, which takes umbrage at any attack on those who are financially successful.

So, Joe, are you for stricter limits on campaign contributions? I am.
 

indeed. from what i've read, much of the money coming in is in the form of small donations, under $100.

i'm all in favor of limiting the ability of individuals to contribute large sums of money, so that the ability of these individuals to later influence the winning candidate (or losing candidate for that matter) is decreased.

but what about small donors? how is one to regulate that? will you basically say that the total donation from small donors is limited to a certain ceiling? and that after that amount is reached, people can no longer donate to their candidate?

if a candidate is able to garner much support, shouldn't these supporters be allowed to contribute to said candidate?

or are you in favor of requiring public funding?
 

I'm only for restrictions that prevent non-citizens from contributing and that increase transparency. Otherwise, I like a free-for-all approach in line w/ our earlier discussions on the marketplace of ideas. I'm not sure that I like the idea of PACs or other organizations giving money to campaigns because it makes the job of seeing the ultimate source of the money more difficult, but I've got no problem w/ them buying ads as long as they're clear about who they are.

I think public financing is overrated, but I have a bigger problem with hypocrisy - promising to take it and talking it up, then changing one's mind when it's convenient.

I agree Obama has created a new fundraising model and has numerous influences, I just don't think he's pulling in all of this money w/o breaking some rules. I hope we'll find out either way. Small internet donations, btw, are ripe for abuse because the effort to verify so many donations must be huge. The best internet scams have always looked to get lots victims for relatively small amounts instead of looking for a small number of big scores. The same method could be used to conceal fraudulent donations. Millions could be spread around using stolen IDs w/o being noticed because the "donors" never actually lose money.

I'm just observing that Obama's money is off the historical charts. I find it hard to believe this all comes from the demographic groups he's mobilized, as they don't normally donate that much. Something is going on besides a fancy website and net promotion. Obama's polls don't reflect the kind of historical passion to back up the money - he's spending like mad and still can't lock this election up, even in a year when democrats ought to be sweeping. That tells me he isn't as popular overall as would normally be required to generate grass roots money on this scale. He is bundling (so is McCain, it's legal), he has had to return foreign money, and when returning money he has dragged his feet. That tells me he isn't taking any particularly special precautions to avoid fraud. As a wise political scientist told me, "there's always campaign fraud, the only question is how far it goes."

As for taking umbrage at his financial success - I'm not a Republican. I only respect financial success that builds value and campaign money doesn't. That's like calling W a businessman because he owned a successful sports team. If his players all suddenly performed beyond their previous abilities, I wouldn't say "Wow, must be the owner" I'd ask them to pee in a cup. To me, at least, this kind of money doesn't pass the smell test, either.

I'm very cynical about politics, btw. I don't trust anybody whose professional ambitions are basically to tell other people how to live their lives, especially if they've never had a non-governmental job.
 

I'm not insane. :)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/28/AR2008102803413_pf.html