Obama Finally Gets Around to the Fat Cats

[Pangloss]

An interesting New York Times editorial today suggests that perhaps the main reason Obama has been getting so much of its money from small donors is because it just hasn't had time for the big wallets yet. In fact one Obama staffer actually said so:

 

But the Democratic fat cats also are meowing loudly of late. As Penny Pritzker — Obama’s campaign finance chairwoman — acknowledged recently, the main reason the campaign relied on small donors for so long is that it had not yet found the time to milk the big ones.

 

“We have not been able to have much of the senator’s time during the primaries so we had to rely more on the Internet,” she told The New York Times last week.

 

Well they seem to be finding time for them now. The Times piece focuses on a fundraiser in Atlanta last night.

 

Mr. Obama spoke of economic struggle to folks who had paid $2,300 to walk in the door; some of them forked over another $10,000 for the pleasure of attending a VIP reception and standing on a photo line.

 

Afterward, he hopped in a van and drove up to the manse of Donna and Michael Coles, set in a prosperous cul de sac. The candidate, hand in pant pocket, stood on a staircase overlooking a sprawling living room, and spoke of the American dream that each successive generation might do a little better than the one before it.

 

Everyone in the room had paid $28,500 to be there; revolutionaries all, no doubt.

 

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/obama-campaign-reaps-gilded-haul/

 

My my. So much for campaign finance reform.

[Mr Skeptic]

So, which special interests groups attended?

[Pangloss]

I've no idea who was there; it doesn't really say.

[Phi for All]

I was willing, at first, to think that Obama wanted to have the bigger war chest just to lock his party's election chances. I will be saddened indeed if he is going to simply run the most ludicrously expensive "race" in US history to get my vote. I'm certainly not well represented by a man that would be that haphazard with marionette money.

 

Why does it seem like, when we could most use a viable third alternative, the reasons for voting for one man so another doesn't win become even more apparent and unfortunately necessary? I want Bob Barr to protect my civil liberties, Dennis Kucinich to stand up to the lobbyists and Ron Paul to stop unnecessary government spending, but if I vote for any of them, I might get McCain and four more years of "How much is that weapon in the window?"

[Pangloss]

That's what I'm thinking, that it's going to be $1 billion vs $86 million. The third-party spending will be a lot more balanced, but I'm not sure if that's a positive sign or a negative one.

[Mr Skeptic]

Hm, just a thought. Would the use of the internet in politics -- blogs, online contributions, etc -- shift the balance of power in favor of the democrats? I say this because the internet seems to be biased in favor of Democrats.

 

This is only vaguely related to this thread (re Obama's fund raising over the internet, and future fund raising), so it may need moving to its own thread if it is interesting enough.