President Obama is Accepting Corporate Donations for his 2nd Inauguration Party

Barack Obama

Barack Obama (Photo credit: jamesomalley)

President Obama campaigned in 2008 as someone who would “change business as usual in Washington” by setting strict rules for his 2009 inauguration.  He wouldn’t allow corporate donations and individuals could only give up to $50,000.  This year I guess they’ve had a change of heart.  The Chicago Tribune reports that this year (coincidently now that he’ll never run for any other office) the Obama inauguration committee is “seeking million–dollar contributions from corporations and offering perks in return, such as tickets to the official ball.” 

The committee has also put no limit on how much people can give.  The White House reportedly “will not take up campaign finance reform any time soon, even in the wake of an election that saw more than $1 billion spent by outside groups.”  Remember President Obama denounced the 2010 Citizen United ruling that allowed corporations to donate unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns in his State of the Union that year.

But campaign finance reform advocates say the president has taken little action to try to limit the huge sums flooding into national politics—and at times has even embraced the system he decries.

I just find it a bit hypocritical that our president campaigned last year touting his disdain for the ruling while amassing large sums of cash because of it.  He continuously said on the campaign trail that the other side was trying to “buy the election.”  The funny thing is that as he decried these injustices he happily accepted donations from corporations.

Those of you who follow this blog know by now that I’m generally a conservative person.  I will support our president, as I indicated on election night.  However, I will point out these failed promises and hypocrisies from Democrats and Republicans.

What do you think?

Is this a big deal?

Email: realtalkdebate2012@gmail.com

Twitter: @adrakontaidis & @talkrealdebate

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , ,

About adrakontaidis

A conservative who doesn't pander to the GOP.

3 responses to “President Obama is Accepting Corporate Donations for his 2nd Inauguration Party”

  1. Kamil Zawadzki says :

    As far as the inauguration bit goes, I don’t really care either way on this one. The inauguration is small potatoes, although I might see how that just reinforces the culture of corporate influence in Washington, D.C.

    As far as the whole arguing against Citizens United while ending up accepting such super PACs himself – yeah that is hypocritical, and it’s absolutely something that should be noted.

    At the same time, it was kind of silly of anyone, progressive supporters or conservative detractors alike, to expect Obama to not work within the new parameters. You play to win. And you play according to the rules. If the rules of the game are changed, it’s incumbent upon the players to adapt to said changes. If they don’t, well, they might as well quit playing the game.

    That also does not necessarily preclude Obama from hoping or advocating for Citizens United to be overturned. He may look like a hypocrite for taking super PAC support in the election, yes, but all that means is he was playing by the same rules Republicans were – it’s not necessarily good but it’s not necessarily bad, either.

    And by that token, the hypocrisy cuts both ways… I found it laughable when some of my Republican friends would support Citizens United and applaud it because of the windfall of money super PACs brought to candidates they supported, yet acted indignant and shocked when Democrats found use for super PACs as well.

    That pro-Republican super PACs outspent pro-Democrat super PACs this election year may be incidental (and in any case, the Republicans did lose not just the presidency but a couple of high-profile races in part because the candidates that won the skewed-right [and abysmally-low turnout, I might add] GOP primaries proved unelectable – a blind, three-legged dog would have been preferable to the likes of Akin or Mourdock). But an election ought to have an even playing field at least as far as institutions and rules go. You can’t have one set of rules for Republicans and another for Democrats both competing for the same seats.
    It’s bad enough that our electoral system skews in favor of the two major parties but to carve out special exceptions for one of the two and leave the other one without the risks OR the benefits of a new rule change would just make it even more blatantly unbalanced.

    If there’s a problem within the system, you advocate to change it, but you can only advocate so much from outside. You’ll have more ability to influence things and make waves from a position of power, and you get there by using the system as best you can to your own advantage. If the Tea Party chose to stay on the streets in its colonial-era getup as opposed to fielding candidates of its own within the Republican Party, they would have the same fate as Occupy Wall Street – doomed to dwindling news coverage of dwindling protests with nearly-nonexistent influence to actually effect the sorts of changes or even solutions any of them suggest.

    As far as Obama goes, one of the things I’m looking for is not whether he hands out tickets to the inauguration ball in return for corporate donations. I’ll be looking for if he can and will at least try to push for the Supreme Court, especially if/when he makes his appointments to the bench, to overturn Citizens United.

    We have a long way to go before we “get money out of politics.” Regardless of if or how much each party benefited in real campaign terms, Citizens United was a step in the opposite direction. I’m looking for if he at least gets us back to square one on that front if not further. And I’ll make my judgments on his level of hypocrisy regarding “money in politics” as we see things develop (or not develop).

    Thanks 🙂

    • realtalkrealdebate says :

      Thanks for the comment! (Yes, I did read it all lol)

      You make a good point I should have added that he was just playing the game. Yes, that’s true but to me that didn’t excuse the hypocrisy.

      If I’m not mistaken it was then- Senator Obama who became the first president to decline the traditional public finance. The ruling just added to how much he made.

      I would hope he does something. Frankly, I don’t think he will. We shall see. I can’t wait to read your blog if he doesn’t. Lol

    • realtalkrealdebate says :

      Btw, what do you think of the new theme? I changed it last night.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: