NY Times falsehood: pro-Obama PAC allows supporters to break legal contribution limits
The lead sentence of an August 7 New York Times article on Vote Hope, a political action committee that says it "intend[s] to deliver California for Barack Obama" in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, asked: "Have some of Senator Barack Obama's supporters figured out how to give more than the $2,300 legal maximum to back their candidate?" The article's claim -- that Vote Hope donors who have already given the maximum to Obama's campaign directly are exceeding legal limits "to back their candidate" -- is false. The $2,300 figure cited by the article is the maximum supporters can donate to a candidate's primary or general election campaign, not to "back their candidate," as the Times reported. As the article later makes clear, Vote Hope was "formed by supporters independent of the Obama campaign" and "cannot coordinate with the Obama campaign," and donors can contribute a maximum of $5,000 to the group, in accordance with campaign finance law.
From the August 7 New York Times article headlined "Digging Deep for Obama," originally published on August 6 on the Times' "The Caucus" weblog:
Have some of Senator Barack Obama's supporters figured out how to give more than the $2,300 legal maximum to back their candidate?
In a report filed last week to the Federal Election Commission, Vote Hope, a political action committee formed by supporters independent of the Obama campaign, identified its first 27 donors. Thirteen of them, mostly wealthy Californians, had also given the maximum allowed, $2,300, to Mr. Obama for the Democratic primary, and three others had given lesser amounts.
Experts say Vote Hope represents a new wrinkle in fund-raising through which donors could more than double what they put up to help a candidate, and that is likely to grow more controversial as the gifts mount. Under federal law, donors can give $2,300 for the primary and $2,300 for the general election, while also giving $5,000 to a group like Vote Hope.
The key is that the group, which has raised $108,000 toward its $2 million goal, cannot coordinate with the Obama campaign. The group wants to encourage blacks, Latinos and young people to vote. But it also wants to tap into their enthusiasm for Mr. Obama by delivering 500,000 votes for him in the Feb. 5 primary, even though Mr. Obama has maintained his distance from the group.
The committee is headed by Steve Phillips, a lawyer who has also raised $215,000 for another voter-outreach effort. He is the son-in-law of Herb Sandler, a major Democratic patron. Mr. Sandler has not contributed to either group, records show.
I thought these pac's are supposed to be "issue oriented" and not advocating one particular candidate (although I suppose they can claim unbelievably that is their issue)? I agree that MMFA is technically right here, but this practice looks like it goes against the intended purpose of these organizations and essentially does what the article describes.
This kind of activity makes a complete mockery of the intentions of McCain-Feingold (regardless of anyone's personal view of it) as I understand it.
What with all these "NY Times Flsehoods" lately, I'm wondering when the Times was purchased by Rupert Murdoch......
Wow, a Dem has raised so much that even the gray lady has their radar up. My golly, I think Obama might even have Repub cash numbers.
Ok, the Republicans made these rules, or could have made the rules how ever they wanted over the last 6 years. It is pretty lame to accuse a PAC that is well with in the law, of trying to bend the rules. Here in Colorado we have had to endure endless Musgrave campaign ads from "issues" PAC's whose issue is smearing Musgrave's opposition. (Musgrave does however get a big atta girl from the KKK http://www.kkk.bz/musgrave.htm , I know, I don't even have to make stuff up!!)
Marilyn Musgrave is one reason I'm glad I no longer live in Colorado. She's almost as bad as that sorry excuse for a Congressman I had for many years - Scott McPinhead.
Well, Scott is a hack politician (no shortage of those in the US at large) but one on one is a very decent man. My son, who was 12 at the time and traveling alone, sat next to him on a 12 seater flight from DIA to Grand Junction. He never once mentioned who he was and engaged our son in converstation the whole bumpy way. After we picked up the kid I asked him who that was that he was talking to in the terminal, and he related how it was just some guy who was really nice to talk too. I then informed him that he was an evil republican, and to never talk to strangers again.:)
PACs dedicated to helping a single candidate seem like a way around donation limits to me, too.
Hey, he's been a Chicagoan for twenty years now, for godsakes. The law wasn't broken. And in the Windy city, you play to win (unless you play baseball at the corner of Clark & Halstead). As long as Democrats act like the Party of Ye Olde Nice Fellas, then we will continue to lose to the Texas Mafia who actually do break the law, then strong arm the Congressional Nice Fellas into re-writing the law to make the Repo Mafia retro-legal.
The New York Times and mainstream media still does not 'get' Obama. They don't understand the hybridized nature of Chicago politics or politicians since Harold Washington.
Obama said in the debate tonight that he doesn't take PAC money. KO asked him a question about it tonight at the debate ,and that was Obama's answer for what it is worth.
All the candidates have to raise obscene amounts of money in our current system to be viable. We can look at how they are raising it and should, but the fact that they have to have this much money is ridiculous. It's hard to get the successful candidates to push for reform.
Other than election with paper balloting, having publically financed elections and a shorter time for campaigning probably should top our list; because without these the other issues including Iraq will not be addressed to our satisfaction.
MMFA is a Hillary mouthpiece! Everything they do is to back Hillary! Obama--
Oh, sorry. Never mind.
Come on.
You don't know The New York Times kept the worthless Whitewater investigation on its front page for years?
The right wing noise machine would have you believe the NYT has a liberal bias but it has consistently filled the role the 4th estate is supposed to fill, questioning those in power no matter what their political affiliation.
Think back to the Pentagon Papers the NYT published. Who did it make look bad Democrats or Republicans? They were a government study of relations with Viet Nam 1945-67.