The Center for Responsive Politics and seven other watchdog groups asked McCain and Obama to make available information on two fundraising tactics used by both parties. Bundlers and their small donors. McCain responded, Obama ignored them.
While they both got some negative remarks McCain did fare better on donor disclosures. Ben Smith notes something that should raise concern on both sides of the aisle:
OpenSecrets compares the two candidates’ disclosure, and finds McCain more transparent, notably in the area of (voluntarily) naming the campaigns’ bundlers, key people in the fundraising apparatus who bring in others’ checks.
Notably, they say, Obama’s bundler figures don’t include the bundlers raise for other committees connected to the campaign, which renders the disclosure pretty incomplete, and providing a way for somebody who wants to keep a low profile and raise a lot of money for the campaign to do so.
So, the Obama campaign which said this about his administration if elected President. He:
would run the most open and transparent government in history
Is not off to a great start in proving this is what he would do. If his campaign for President is any indication about the way he would run his administration I would have to say the man is outright lying. He ignores requests from watchdog groups about his fundraising practices and then when compared side by side with McCain he is notably deficient in transparency.
Jennifer Rubin noted the hypocrisy last month:
One part of Barack Obama’s reformer image — his devotion to public financing — has gone by the wayside. But what about transparency, the favorite buzzword of reformers? You will recall how his campaign bashed Hillary Clinton for months for failure to open up the records on the Clinton Library donors and the Clintons’ taxes. But what about Obama’s own records?
Yes, he did share some tax returns. But not his actual medical records. And this reminds me that his bar application, which contains a full accounting of ethical and legal issues, remains hidden from view. And what about his state senate records, of which he claims there is not a scrap of paper, anywhere? Even the precise clients he represented as a lawyer, including the extent of his work for Tony Rezko, remain shrouded from view.
There are many things that worry me about this guy. His severe lack of judgment regarding those he associates with, his Marxist philosophies on how this country should be run, his lack of transparency regarding his campaign and fundraising, and his cult of personality which has most certainly gone to his head. Not to mention the fawning displayed by our supposed “unbiased” journalists in this country. Need anymore proof of this? Check out his reception from journalists at the “Unity” conference in Chicago a few days ago.
Not just polite applause but a standing ovation. A standing ovation from journalists for a Presidential candidate! Not the first time its happened it appears. From 2004:
The journalists’ reaction to Bush was tepid compared with their enthusiastic reception for Kerry, who spoke at the same convention Thursday. Breaking with journalists’ custom of neutrality, the audience gave Kerry a standing ovation even before he began speaking and interrupted his remarks with applause nearly 50 times.
In contrast, Bush drew a smattering of polite applause and a standing ovation at the end of his appearance. At one point, his speech was interrupted by a heckler who cried out “Shame on you for lying to the media, misleading the public” before being evicted from the room.
Nope, no bias there. Oh, and its not about race don’t ya know! Nevermind the questions during the Q&A about reparations and apologies and other baloney:
BRIAN BULL, WISCONSIN PUBLIC RADIO, NATIVE AMERICAN JOURNALISTS ASSOCIATION: Senator, I’m Brian Bull from Wisconsin Public Radio and the Native American Journalists Association.
Last February, the Australian prime minister apologized for the past treatment of its indigenous people. Last month, the Canadian prime minister also issued an apology for its treatment of its indigenous population. Would your administration issue an apology to Native Americans for the atrocities they’ve endured for the past 500 years?
OBAMA: You know, I personally would want to see our tragic history or the tragic elements of our history acknowledged. And I think that there’s no doubt that, when it comes to our treatment of Native Americans, as well as other persons of color in this country, that we’ve got some — some very sad and difficult things to account for.
You know, what an official apology would look like, how it would be shaped, that’s something that I would want to consult with Native American tribes and councils to talk about, and — because, obviously, as sovereign nations, they also have a whole host of other issues that they’re concerned about and that they’ve prioritized.
One of the things that I’ve said to tribal leaders is, I want to set up a annual meeting with them and make sure that a whole range of these issues are addressed.
But I’ve consistently believed, when it comes — whether it’s Native American issues, whether it’s African-American issues and reparations, that the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just to offer words, but offer deeds.
How in the world did anyone expect the man NOT to get a standing ovation? He’s offering free money to those people who have never experienced slavery AND its money from the pockets of those who have never owned a slave. Ain’t it wonderful?
Yeah, I know…a long winding road of a post that started with campaign finance and ended with media bias and reparations but there is soooooo much wrong with Obama its hard to keep on topic.