dagblog - Comments for "Obama releases list of top money 'bundlers'"

Here's a confirmation.

Verified Atheist — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 11:55:21 +0000

In reply to Ah, smart thinkin', you're

Here's a confirmation. $30,800 is the most you can give to a national party committee (e.g., the DNC).

I don't know if the $5,000 is ($2,500 x 2), with $2,500 is the most you can give to a federal candidate per election, with primaries and general elections considered separate elections, or if it's actually for Obama's PAC, with $5,000 being the most you can give to a PAC that supports federal candidates (cf. super-PACs which theoretically don't support federal candidates). I'm guessing the latter, actually.

Ah, smart thinkin', you're

artappraiser — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 11:36:22 +0000

In reply to On a more serious note, I

Ah, smart thinkin', you're probably right.

On a more serious note, I

Verified Atheist — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 11:21:54 +0000

In reply to As you know, not all rich

On a more serious note, I suspect that dollar value is set by some legal consideration: the maximum allowable for something-or-other. (Note that the $35,800 was broken down into $5,000 for Obama, and $30,800 for the DNC.)

Uh, that is the plan! And the

Aunt Sam — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 04:07:45 +0000

In reply to So Obama appears as an image

Uh, that is the plan! And the video feed will broadcast the gnashing and wailing around the world! I'll be recording it to watch over and over again.

As you know, not all rich

Elusive Trope — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 02:46:36 +0000

In reply to Lol, only to space nuts like

As you know, not all rich people are heartless cretins, some of them are quite liberal even. And after the Bush years and the rise of the tea party, with a Wall Street nominee coming soon, they know what is at stake. They probably charged that amount because they knew they could. As centerist, even conservative, as Obama is - he is the only thing really standing in the way of the Republicans taking us back to the stone age.

Imagine how much Oprah could toss into a SuperPAC?

So Obama appears as an image

Elusive Trope — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 02:25:42 +0000

In reply to I also wonder how they came

So Obama appears as an image motionless above, forever a fixed point in the sky causing the conservatives much wailing and gnashing of teeth?

Lol, only to space nuts like

artappraiser — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 02:21:03 +0000

In reply to I also wonder how they came

Lol, only to space nuts like you (and Newt.)

Trope, I been reading NYTimes stories and such on fund raisers, not just political but in high society charity circles, for decades, and it strikes me as an outrageouly high and nonsensical amount too. I recall that in the Bonfire of Vanities/Gordon Gekko days, $25K per table of 6 was considered sufficient to shock, and it seems it's still a usual number now for the highball events. Why the odd inflation indeed?

I also wonder how they came

Verified Atheist — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 01:51:34 +0000

In reply to First, it (almost) boggles my

I also wonder how they came up with that amount for the ticket. Why not an even $36,000 or $35,000? Why not $35,700?

I'm guessing it's because he thought that 35,786 would've been too obvious.

First, it (almost) boggles my

Elusive Trope — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 01:25:13 +0000

In reply to Obama releases list of top money 'bundlers'

First, it (almost) boggles my mind to think about spending $35,800 on a single ticket to see Obama or anybody. (I also wonder how they came up with that amount for the ticket. Why not an even $36,000 or $35,000? Why not $35,700? Was a numerologist consulted?) I say almost because working for a charity a while ago, one our donors came in to make her annual donation, whipped out her little personal checkbook from her purse and wrote it out for $25,000. I think it was just the nonchalant manner as she just handed the check over and then started talking about something like the weather that was kind of stunning.

Second, on one of the related articles listed, it states

Obama is the only presidential candidate to publicly identify backers who are bundling donations.

So there is a little transparency.

Third, the article begins

President Barack Obama entered his re-election year with more money to spend than he had four years ago when he defeated Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic nomination.

Obama reported a bank account balance of $81.8 million as of Dec. 31 as he took in $128 million last year for his re- election campaign, including $40 million from October to December.

The figures include transfers from a joint fundraising effort with the Democratic National Committee. Four years ago, he had raised $104 million through Dec. 31 and had $18.6 million in the bank.

So he has $63,200,000 more in the bank than he did last time around with no contested primary to drain his account. To get some perspective, the Romney campaign and his SuperPAC has spent about $15,000,000 in Florida in order to carpet bomb Newt.

I was just thinking that one of the damages done by Newt's Bain and Swiss bank accounts attack is makes it more difficult for Romney to spend his own personal fortune to defeat Obama. He becomes more open to attacks of "buying the election."

Meanwhile Obama can claim:

Obama has maintained a strong base of small donors; $58.5 million, or 46 percent, came in through contributions of $200 or less.

Fourth, has anyone seen Joe Biden lately?