Obama Admin Breaks Campaign Finance Law

[FBD]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlypjw9i7Vg

At the 3:29 mark: “Globally we raised more than 86-million dollars — more than $47 million for Obama for America and more than $38 million for the DNC.”

http://www.fec.gov/ans/answers_general.shtml#Can_nonUS_citizens_contribut e

Can non-US citizens contribute?

Foreign nationals are prohibited from making any contributions or expenditures in connection with any election in the U.S. Please note, however, that “green card” holders (i.e., individuals lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the U.S.) are not considered foreign nationals and, as a result, may contribute.



-----------------


I'm sure the donations will be recorded in "some other bucket" that they wont wind up considering "campaign election funds."

Ya know, just so they can keep up the appearance of not lying, again.

[Muddy]

Thanks for posting this, homie... You are really performing a great service for our country... :)

[FBD]

You want me to post this stuff daily, dont you :razz: I KNOW you'll benefit :D

[Muddy]

Oh god PLEEEEEEEZE dooo!!!! :lol:

[FBD]

:lol: well, I'm gone for the weekend, so you'll have to wait for next week :razz:

[Deepsepia]

At the 3:29 mark: “Globally we raised more than 86-million dollars — more than $47 million for Obama for America and more than $38 million for the DNC.”


I'm sure the donations will be recorded in "some other bucket" that they wont wind up considering "campaign election funds."

Ya know, just so they can keep up the appearance of not lying, again.

Wow, you know, when something occurs to you of a partisan nature, you might just stop yourself right there-- because you're almost always wrong, as you are here

"Globally" here means "in aggregate", not "globally" as in internationally. That is, they're simply adding the $47 million for "Obama for America" and the $38 million for the DNC, and the "global" number is just those two figures added together, as is obvious when you watch the video.

They are not saying that they raised these funds internationally. Both funds file with the FEC, which prohibits such donations.


http://picload.org/image/lpdwil/firefoxscreensna.jpg


If you like you can read the "Obama for America" filings, here:
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C00431445

and you can read the "Democratic National Committee" filings here:
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00000935/

If you want a somewhat more user friendly interface with which to browse these filings, I recommend opensecrets.org
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cid=N00009638&cycle=2008

But no matter which portal you go through, your claims are in error: there are no foreign contributors to either entity.

So you're wrong again.

I've got a question for you: why doesn't the fact that your partisan posts are so consistently and easily shown to be wrong deter you? Me, if I rely on a source which proves unreliable-- well I'm very hesitant to rely on it again, and only will go back to it if I can confirm it somehow.

I'm not sure where you get this stuff, Drudge or similar, but at this point anyone who reads your posts can see that they're both partisan and most often easily shown to be incorrect, as is the case here.

You're not a dumb guy -- on scientific and technical matters, you make subtle and interesting points-- but on the political subjects, you just fall for any random anti-Obama slur, seemingly without any thought. How come?

[KevinD]

In this case, "globally" was a poor choice to use. It would have been much better to use "Overall" or something to that effect.

[Deepsepia]

In this case, "globally" was a poor choice to use. It would have been much better to use "Overall" or something to that effect.

Merriam-Webster in fact lists "Overall" as a synonym for "global".

The evidence is in that crazies can't be appeased, to watch that video and conclude that it constitutes evidence of some international donations is out of conspiracy theory pathology, and folks whose cognition is that defective can't be satisfied by anything. They've decided the world is flat, and everything begins with that embedded premise.

The campaigns' donor lists are public documents, and so the only person who would misunderstand an individual word spoken in a very casual presentation would have to be:
a) so fanatical in their partisanship as to worry, word-by-word about minor campaign communications

b) not actually familiar with the authoritative filings that every campaign must file, and which are open for public inspection.

In other words, to reach the conclusion of the OP, you'd have to simultaneously be obsessed with the minutiae of statements by minor campaign officials -- and yet ignorant of the major data source that anyone who's interested in campaign finance routinely studies. I have no idea who such a person is . . . if you're drilling down to this level of analysis, but not aware of campaign filings-- its just a bizarre contradiction, and the only real explanation is the "flat earther", a conspiracy theorist so fixed on some particular agenda that they collect every odd scrap of information that seems to fit their grand theory, ignoring everything else.

http://picload.org/image/lpaolc/globaldefinition.jpg

[Softdreamer]

so, wait a minute.... America objects to foreign individuals funding a political leadership contest??


A teensy bit hypocritical no?

[KevinD]

Merriam-Webster in fact lists "Overall" as a synonym for "global".

The evidence is in that crazies can't be appeased, to watch that video and conclude that it constitutes evidence of some international donations is out of conspiracy theory pathology, and folks whose cognition is that defective can't be satisfied by anything. They've decided the world is flat, and everything begins with that embedded premise.

The campaigns' donor lists are public documents, and so the only person who would misunderstand an individual word spoken in a very casual presentation would have to be:
a) so fanatical in their partisanship as to worry, word-by-word about minor campaign communications

b) not actually familiar with the authoritative filings that every campaign must file, and which are open for public inspection.

In other words, to reach the conclusion of the OP, you'd have to simultaneously be obsessed with the minutiae of statements by minor campaign officials -- and yet ignorant of the major data source that anyone who's interested in campaign finance routinely studies. I have no idea who such a person is . . . if you're drilling down to this level of analysis, but not aware of campaign filings-- its just a bizarre contradiction, and the only real explanation is the "flat earther", a conspiracy theorist so fixed on some particular agenda that they collect every odd scrap of information that seems to fit their grand theory, ignoring everything else.

http://picload.org/image/lpaolc/globaldefinition.jpg

So, what I said then. lol




Wait, what?? whadda ya mean the Earth isn't flat? Is so!

[DemonGeminiX]

so, wait a minute.... America objects to foreign individuals funding a political leadership contest??


A teensy bit hypocritical no?

No. It's been illegal since our government was set up after we threw you guys out back in the late 1700s.

[Softdreamer]

No. It's been illegal since our government was set up after we threw you guys out back in the late 1700s.

Im talking about America, and American people financing foreign politicians..

[DemonGeminiX]

We don't finance foreign politicians. We just invade and overthrow current regimes and replace them with ones we like better.

:hand:

Not the same thing.

[Softdreamer]

so the application for additional funding of anti-chavez political groups just exposed on wikileaks was a one off?

[DemonGeminiX]

:lol:

You're taking me way too seriously right now, bro.

[Softdreamer]

Hey, its rare for me to make any serious posts... roll with it :lol:

[FBD]

"Globally" here means "in aggregate", not "globally" as in internationally. That is, they're simply adding the $47 million for "Obama for America" and the $38 million for the DNC, and the "global" number is just those two figures added together, as is obvious when you watch the video.

They are not saying that they raised these funds internationally. Both funds file with the FEC, which prohibits such donations.

Yep, and I'm perfectly sure that they didnt receive anything internationally in the 2008 election cycle, "it was all from americans in other countries."

Look, we had foreigners boasting about making donations last time around. In light of stuff like that, you'd think that they'd be a little more careful in their choice of verbiage - because given the Obama admin's lack of regard for laws it deems inconvenient, there's a hell of a lot of us that wouldnt put it past them to be floating the back room joke of "we even said we did it, howbout that one! ha!"

sorta like the "under my plan, energy rates would necessarily skyrocket" comment... (We elected somebody that said that!?)

or them vehemently asserting a year ago that "Social Security benefits are entirely self-financing. They are paid for with payroll taxes collected from workers and their employers throughout their careers. These taxes are placed in a trust fund dedicated to paying benefits owed to current and future beneficiaries."

and then Obama comes about telling Grandma her SS in in jeopardy because congress isnt giving him (yet another) blank check to spend.

a second, and third fast & furious...

Sorry - you'll have just about as much chance of convincing Sertes that the 911 commish report is fully and completely factual as convincing me Obama will play by the rules in a situation where he knows some vague accounting tricks can hide things as if a dime bag of weed on a big crowded messy ass desk. and then present the party's numbers!

:lol: that'd be like using the 911 commish report to actually convince sertes :lol: