Obama memo: Edwards getting big money from working Americans!!!!!

[sjdnb]

12/29 memo from Obama's Campaign Mgr: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/29/538074.aspx

To paraphrase: OH, MY, JUST LOOK WHO supports John Edwards - people who believe in him!!!

Working for Working Americans/Carpenters: $526,440.76
Alliance for a New America (SEIU): $1,530,411.77 (this includes $769,000 that has not formally posted)
Democratic Courage: $20,410.00 (http://www.dcourage.com/a/2007/01/about_democratic_courage.php)
Total: $2,077,262.53

Some little old lady gave him $495,000 - And, Obama's guy says "While Edwards has said he doesn’t want this group to run ads, he has not called his former employee and friend and asked him not run these ads." -- Msg. to Obama: You'd better check twice on this guy's recommendations because, from what I understand about campaign law (unless it's changed) is that what he is suggesting would be ILLEGAL!!!

And, given the following, I wonder what could have possessed Obama's 'Campaign Manager' to want to bring up money raised, who donates, and spending?

Top Contributors equaling >$1m by candidate (open secrets)
Edwards ActBlue $1,965,274 http://www.actblue.com/about
Obama Goldman Sachs $369,078, Lehman Brothers $229,090, National Amusements Inc $220,950,
JP Morgan Chase & Co $216,759
Clinton DLA Piper $356,100, Goldman Sachs $350,050, Morgan Stanley $323,550

Top Industries (open secrets)
Edwards Lawyers/Law firms $8,161,150
Obama Lawyers/Law firms $7,940,424
Clinton Lawyers/Law firms $9,596,748

TV spending in Iowa (from KOS)
Kerry '04: $2.73
Edwards '08: $2.7
Obama: $8.3
Clinton: $6.5

Days spent in Iowa (from KOS)
Kerry '04: 76
Edwards '08: 80
Obama: 78
Clinton: 66

Obama's Man at the top WROTE: "However, there is no doubt that the size of the spending and its underhanded nature deserve further scrutiny." If it weren't so sleazy, I'd be ROTFLMAO!

[DemKR]

1. LOL....ULTIMATE DESPERATION.

[Adelante]

2. Campaign finance groups are giving it scrutiny

In discussing the role being played by 527 groups in the 2008 presidential caucuses and primaries, some published media reports have stated that these political groups can raise and spend unlimited contributions in the presidential race, as long as they do not explicitly urge people to "vote for" or "vote against" a presidential candidate and do not coordinate their efforts with a presidential candidate or campaign.

This statement is wrong.

In fact, the Federal Election Commission found that numerous 527 groups illegally spent unlimited contributions in the 2004 presidential election, without explicitly urging people to "vote for" or "vote against" a presidential candidate, and without coordinating their efforts with a presidential candidate or campaign.

In a number of enforcement cases arising out of the 2004 presidential election and decided within the last year, the FEC found that these 527 groups had violated the campaign finance laws by failing to register as federal "political committees," and by failing to abide by the limits that apply to contributions made to such committees.

In each case, the Commission made a determination that the 527 group was spending money to influence the election or defeat of a presidential candidate, even though the group did not explicitly urge people to "vote for" or "vote against" a candidate. And in each case, the Commission found that the 527 group had a "major purpose" to influence federal elections.

-snip

"Despite the FEC findings of widespread illegal conduct by 527 groups in the 2004 presidential election, it appears that 527 groups are blatantly and arrogantly at it again in the current presidential race," Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer stated.

"These 527 groups are spending large sums of unlimited contributions on what they claim are 'issue ads' but what instead are unquestionably 'campaign ads' being run to influence the 2008 presidential election." Wertheimer said.

"Given the past FEC determinations that illegal expenditures were made by numerous 527 groups in the 2004 presidential election, no one should be making the assumption that the 527 groups currently spending millions of dollars in Iowa and New Hampshire are doing so legally," Wertheimer stated. "In reality, these 527 groups may be making illegal expenditures in 2008, just as 527 groups did in 2004."

http://www.democracy21.org/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC={91FCB139-CC82-4DDD-AE4E-3A81E6427C7F}&DE={F3CFEA71-36DA-4056-89EF-12168391CB5F}


I'm adding this picture of a mail piece by the 527 in question to illustrate Democracy 21's points above. Does this look like an issue piece or a campaign brochure?

[Andy823]

4. So what do you want

Edwards to do about it? He did what he could and told them to stop. None of the other canidates would do any more, or could do any more, yet you keep on attacking Edwards. I think you must be a be afraid he will win Iowa! Might as well sit back and enjoy the show! :popcorn:

[Adelante]

12. I've said for months Edwards could win Iowa

When very many here were counting him out. Try again.

[Andy823]

3. I think someone

Is getting desperate to bring this kind of stuff up. All one has to do is look at the money trail to see who supports who, and it's obvious where the "special" interest money really goes, and it isn't to Edwards.

I get a kick out of them saying that the unions backing these 527's are the same as the "special" interest groups that run D.C. :rofl:

I also heard Obam on Meet the Press this morining talking about the "negative" adds these groups were putting out against him! Now the only one I have seen had nothing at all "negative" in it, and never mentioned Obama. I also hear from people in Iowa that there have been "NOT" negative adds run in the state, so I am not sure what he was talkin about.

The people "love" Edwards, and the more that hear him, the more love him and his message. :patriot:

[ShadesOfGrey]

13. Good post...

"All one has to do is look at the money trail to see who supports who, and it's obvious where the "special" interest money really goes, and it isn't to Edwards."


EXACTLY!!!
:thumbsup:

[Jane Austin]

5. Ms. Mellon is a "working American"?

At 97? :)

[tammywammy]

6. A "working American"

That has at least $495,000 in disposable income. :eyes:

[Jane Austin]

7. I think she gave $295,000 to his PAC, too.

No?

[tammywammy]

8. That's why I said "at least"

She's definitely not your average working American.

[FrenchieCat]

9. Not even the average "retired" working American. n/t

[sjdnb]

26. Guess I should have kept it more simple for some

who fail to understand a post can contain more than one point ... sorry, thought most DUers were smarter.

Shame on me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3910882&mesg_id=3911322

[sjdnb]

15. i.e., the Mellon contrib to Alliance

"Such groups are not allowed to coordinate their efforts with a political campaign."

Translation: Edwards would be violating campaign laws if he called him. Did you read the entire post? There was more than one point made about the Obama memo. Sorry if that confused you.

[sandnsea]

17. Nah, just "some little old lady"

:eyes: Riiiight.

[Armstead]

18. Well at least she's not an executive at Goldman Sachs

I guess it's better to build a campaign warchest from the Wall St. crowd who can REALLY buy a candidate's loyalty :eyes:

[sjdnb]

25. Take a gander ...

Obviously, reading entire posts is not your forte ... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3910882&mesg_id=3911322

[ShadesOfGrey]

10. My opinion of Obama is sinking fast...

[OHdem10]

11. The Edwards Surge has them scraping the barrel.

[Jim Sagle]

14. The Politics of Crock

;)

[JDPriestly]

16. I print out Edwards papers and hand them out.

I suppose Obama would object to what I'm doing too. I think it is nobody's business. I have never met Edwards. I am doing this on my own as a citizen. It is my right to do this. The unions also have the right to do what they want with the union money. Edwards can't tell them to stop any more than he can tell me to stop. If the FEC wants to come and fine this little old lady, well, there is nothing I can do about it. I will do what I think is right. I think Obama is out of place. During my tabling, I have SEIU members come up to me out here in California. They are so excited about Edwards. Obama is just jealous because Edwards is doing so well without taking corporate money and without bribing the media by spending excessive amounts of money on TV ads. Obama got a lot of money from Hollywood .

[SoxFan]

19. "Little old lady"

First of all, she's an heir to the Mellon family fortune, not a retired seamstress from Cedar Falls.

Second, the fact that Mellon's lawyer, the guy who has power of attorney over her assets, is an Edwards fundraiser certainly looks suspicious at best, downright repulsive at worst. This is the sort of thing that gets lawyers disbarred.

Third, the Edwards campaign has a history of playing fast and loose with campaign finance laws. Geoffrey Fieger (the kevorkian lawyer) is under federal indictment for shady fundraising on behalf of Edwards, and Arkansas lawyer Tab Turner ended up negotiating a plea deal with the FEC for financial flim-flam.

[sjdnb]

20. As a John Edwards supporter, I thank you

For your relentless, yet desperately pathetic twisting of the facts, only making your candidate and yourself look more desperate and pathetic with every post.

Check the facts:

TV spending

Obama vs Edwards
$8.3m $2.7m

That's the bottom line ... half a million from a little old RICH lady to a group supporting Edwards is chump change.

[SoxFan]

23. Nobody's twisting the facts

Fact: "The Alliance for a New America" was set up last fall by longtime Edwards advisor Nick Baldick.

Fact: This group serves no purpose other than to assist John Edwards.

Fact: Unlike the official Edwards campaign, this organization is not bound by the tight restrictions on individual donations or the prohibition against corporate and labor contributions.

Fact: "Bunny" Mellon (or her attorney, Mr. Forger) donated almost $500K to the 527. Under federal law, she could contribute less than $5,000 to the Edwards for President Committee.

Edwards is playing fast and loose with the campaign finance laws. By having his long time aide set up a 527 whose sole purpose is to expend funds on his behalf, Edwards is able to allocate his money to other areas. I live in NH, and I haven't seen an Edwards mailer in months. I have recived three glossy flyers from Nick Baldick's 527. Edwards is simply aloowing the 527 to handle his direct mail effort, while he spends "official" campaign funds on a large Boston/Manchester television buy.

[sjdnb]

24. And, the fact remains

He is not 'playing fast and/or loose' with anything - any interference/intervention by John Edwards or any of his campaign staff - with any outside interest group - would be illegal.

It is you and Obama's Campaign Manager who do not seem to understand campaign law - and have chosen, out of fear, desperation, whatever, to play fast and loose with the facts in an attempt to smear another Democratic candidate.

You want to debate issues/policies/ideas/positions, fine ... just to crawl around in the mud in a desperate attempt to spin nothing into something .... is just Rovian.

[SoxFan]

30. A smoking gun?

"any interference/intervention by John Edwards or any of his campaign staff - with any outside interest group - would be illegal."


At today’s “SEIU for Edwards” meeting convened in Chicago upon adjournment of the IEB, we decided:

2) To be prepared to roll out thse endorsement in a coordinated press strategy with the Edwards campaign next week, possibly as early as Monday.

3) To discuss with the Edwards campaign what specific sort of support they’d like to see from us, given our new state-based strategy. Tom Woodruff will talk to David Bonior; I will talk to Chris Cafe; Cathy Singer Glasson and I will visit the Edwards operation in Iowa on Wednesday.

http://thepage.time.com/e-mail-on-seiu-for-edwards-meeting-details/

[laureloak]

21. Ring. Ring...

Hilary is calling you.

Team Edwards doesn't have time for your kind of politics. We have a nation to mend!

[Triana]

22. As a reminder of who gets what from whom and how much:

Hillary is on top of every category and Obama is within the top five of most.

WHERE, in comparison, is Edwards?

And we have HILLarites and Obama supporters whining up a storm here, just LOOKING for any piece of dust to kick up about Edwards, now that he's in the lead.

Let's keep it in perspective, folks.

[ShadesOfGrey]

27. Thank you! n/t

[sjdnb]

28. Bingo! Add DailyKos, more from Opensecrets, etc.

and, anyone willing to do their homework can see why this smear was so disingenuous.

[Triana]

29. It's rediculous - not to mention grossly hypocritical (n/t)