OBAMA ATTACKS: Has problems with John Edwards help from Working Americans

[DemKR]

Jealousy?

Look, it's no secret that I, like the majority of Americans, am a Hillary supporter. But John Edwards is a good man and doesn't deserve these kind of attacks. I feel the need to treat the candidates equally.

DONATIONS:

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_cour... )
Total: $2,077,262.53

Working American Unions, above, are supporting Mr. Edwards, respectively.

What does the Obama camp have to say?

Head Barack Obama Attack Dog is criticizing John Edwards.....again.

"If Edwards can’t stand up to his own former aides how can stand up to the special interests in Washington?" says Mr. David Plouffe.


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/29/538074.aspx

Shame on you Barack!

[skipos]

1. DemKR ATTACKS! Your posts blow ass. I support Biden by the way. nt

[DemKR]

2. why don't you jiust respond to the attack?

[tammywammy]

8. Why do you respond to yourself?

[Adelante]

3. Shame

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.

[DemKR]

5. that would be what I call "Free speech!!!!"

[Adelante]

7. That would be what I call "Against the law" nt

[tammywammy]

16. Then you clearly don't understand

campaign finance laws. That would be against the law.

[OHdem10]

19. This simply means Obama feels threatened by Edwards surging

in Iowa. Otherwise, it would not be worth mentioning.

[Adelante]

21. I find campaign finance reform very much worth mentioning

And have long before I ever thought of Obama.. or of Edwards in Iowa :shrug:

[sniffa]

4. .

[DemKR]

6. why do you accuse me of only pro hillary posts? This is an anti-edwards attack

[no name no slogan]

9. Here's a link to the video

HERE

[Forkboy]

10. ....

[sniffa]

11. i like my picture better

more brains

[DemKR]

12. sigh.

[Forkboy]

15. better alert, dude.

I wouldn't stand for that!

[tammywammy]

13. But what's with the can of Spam?

[no name no slogan]

14. If I were a candidate, I'd only take $$$ from welfare cheats and crack dealers

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

17. Let's get something straight here...

I know this is spit in the ocean when it comes to these discussions, and some people will simply not allow facts to get in the way of a good rant, but stating that a candidate can (or should) somehow "control" the activities of a 527 organization is total and utter bullshit. Anybody who posts otherwise is either mind-numblingly ignorant or being willfully misleading.

The WHOLE POINT of 527 organizations is that they exist outside of, and independent of, a political campaign or political party. If Edwards or Obama or Hillary had any control in even the slightest form (i.e., to tell these organizations to stop running advertisements) then they would be in violation of the Internal Revenue Code and the Federal Elections Commission.

No candidate has control over the activities of a 527 organization -- BY LAW. Even if a candidate wanted the organization to stop sending a particular message, he (or she) would be batshit crazy to make any public statement to that effect, because then if the organization ceased or altered its activities, it would give the appearance that the organization is controlled by the candidate and is not independent.

Like I said, this probably won't stop this particularly idiotic meme, but at least I feel better.

We now return you to our quadrennial blood-letting...

[DemKR]

18. I don't see how that means EDWARDS violated the law

[surfermaw]

22. You got it Hillary

EDwards just took in too many Unions to suit Obama, my Edwards hasn't spent any corporate dollars, why is Obama crying like a baby.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

32. The scenario...

is that Candidate A gets support (in the form of TV ads) from a 527, and Candidate B says, "Hey, those ads are unfair and Candidate A should stop running them."

Every campaign has been guilty of this to some extent in the past several weeks, as the attacks have grown more and more strident.

[no name no slogan]

20. Better to spit in the ocean, than to piss in the wind

-- ancient midwestern proverb

[Omaha Steve]

23. A tiger can't change his stripes

AFSCME has contributed over $100,000 toward electing Senator Clinton to date. That is a fund I have given to in the past. I don't see Senator Clinton giving AFSCME any similar crap to stop. The Illinois AFSCME locals are supporting Obama. Why is Edwards different?

[sjdnb]

30. Because he is only interested in serving the avg American

whereas, Obama and Clinton are only interested in serving their own egos.

[Azathoth]

24. All this does is remind people that Obama is winning this thing on his own

Without the help of 527s to skirt campaign finance laws for him.

[Frances]

25. So you don't think teachers and janitors have a right to be heard?

I loved Obama's 2004 speech at the convention.

But I worry that he doesn't really support the people at the bottom of the totem pole.

And yes I will definitely vote for him if he is the nominee.

[Azathoth]

28. Do they have a right to be "heard"? Sure. Do they have a right to pour millions into his campaign

through a rather obvious campaign finance loophole? That's a bit more tricky, especially since Edwards claims that he doesn't support 527s.

By the way, do the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth also have a right to be "heard" right in the middle of an election?

[sjdnb]

26. No, all this does is make Obama look like the only thing he is 'hoping' for

is to win...no matter what Rovian tactics it takes.

[Azathoth]

27. Rovian? LOL

Last I checked, Obama wasn't the one push-polling, fear-mongering, or digging up dirt on his opponents' kindergarten years.

Unless, of course, pointing out inconvenient facts about your opponent is now considered 'Rovian', but then, wouldn't that also be a classic 'Rovian' tactic for deflecting criticism?

[sjdnb]

29. Try again ... your freshman campaign staff is losing

They obviously don't have a clue as to campaign law, protocol, or even the basic rules of primary politics, and are only interested in posting BS that they think might sway the most gullible people.

Good luck with that.

[Azathoth]

31. LOL...us poor shlubs don't understand "protocol"

I'm glad we have you to remind us of campaign 'protocol' (:rofl:) and the 'basic rules of primary politics' (:rofl::rofl:). In your pompous bluster, you of course neglected to elucidate on these rather interesting concepts, and you certainly didn't offer a specific, cogent argument of your own, but I guess that isn't really surprising.

Good luck with your "people who criticize my candidate are just ignorant of proper campaign protocol" line. I hear voters really respond to that kind of pretentious tripe. :hi:

[Perry Logan]

33. The "Obama attacks" threads have been devastating. And without anti-Hillary-style smears.