Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Dec 8, 2012, 11:58 PM   #1
SLC Flyfishing
macrumors 65816
 
SLC Flyfishing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Portland, OR
President Obama to accept unlimited corporate donations for inauguration event

I'm surprised (not!) that nobody here has commented on this story yet.

What's the prevailing opinion on here about this? Seems sorta hipocritical to me!

http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/12/07/reversal-president-obama-accept-corporate-donations-help-fund-inauguration/SnlURsspmd74BhuaUVxmYN/story.html
SLC Flyfishing is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 9, 2012, 12:07 AM   #2
Carlanga
macrumors 603
 
Carlanga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PR
Why you cut off the title? is missing: "to help fund inauguration" (That is not transparent from you )

Not to me, I think the issue is not so much the unlimited funding, but who is behind it and they are trying to be as "transparent" as possible. Inauguration funding is not such a big deal as funding to run for president in my book.

From your own link:
“To ensure continued transparency, all names of donors will be posted to a regularly updated website.”

The committee is still barring lobbyists and political action committees from donating. They are establishing a system for vetting such donations, and won’t accept donations from corporations that accepted stimulus funding and haven’t paid the money back, for example.
__________________
☻ "A dream you dream alone is only a dream...
... A dream you dream together is reality." ☻
Carlanga is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 9, 2012, 12:15 AM   #3
thewitt
macrumors 68000
 
thewitt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Obama is of course trying to get corporation money - those evil corporate profits - and you can bet these guys will end up with some preferential treatment in the future.

This is the hypocritical game played "inside the beltway" and the BIG LIE that is Washington politics.

Those who fail to acknowledge it are simply happier living in ignorance.
thewitt is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 9, 2012, 12:22 AM   #4
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Pretty surprising move ... for a socialist.

citizenzen is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 9, 2012, 02:54 AM   #5
leekohler
Banned
 
leekohler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlanga View Post
Why you cut off the title? is missing: "to help fund inauguration" (That is not transparent from you )

Not to me, I think the issue is not so much the unlimited funding, but who is behind it and they are trying to be as "transparent" as possible. Inauguration funding is not such a big deal as funding to run for president in my book.

From your own link:
“To ensure continued transparency, all names of donors will be posted to a regularly updated website.”

The committee is still barring lobbyists and political action committees from donating. They are establishing a system for vetting such donations, and won’t accept donations from corporations that accepted stimulus funding and haven’t paid the money back, for example.
Oh- don't present the facts, it gets in the way of a good smear.
leekohler is offline   7 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 9, 2012, 09:26 AM   #6
iJohnHenry
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: On tenterhooks
Obama to take unlimited corporate donations to help fund inauguration

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlanga View Post
Why did you cut off the title? It's missing: "to help fund inauguration"
Quote:
Originally Posted by leekohler View Post
Oh - don't present the facts, it gets in the way of a good smear.
I believe the thread title requires some Mod action, if the OP refuses to supplement it.

And it all fits. (See above.)

Last edited by iJohnHenry; Dec 9, 2012 at 09:33 AM.
iJohnHenry is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 9, 2012, 12:00 PM   #7
leekohler
Banned
 
leekohler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by iJohnHenry View Post
I believe the thread title requires some Mod action, if the OP refuses to supplement it.

And it all fits. (See above.)
This is exactly why I get frustrated in here. In this case, it looks to be quite deliberate too.
leekohler is offline   8 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 9, 2012, 02:41 PM   #8
SLC Flyfishing
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
SLC Flyfishing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Naah it wasn't intentional, at least not an attempt to mislead. I can see how it could have read that way though so I'm glad the mods fixed it. I haven't been back till just now.

I just think it's strange that he does such a 180 now that he's elected to his final term. No corporate funds for Obama events until now? Could it be because he knows there's no election to lose anymore if this upsets his constituents?

This just seems like a total falling away from his past actions (which I actually respected, quite a bit).
SLC Flyfishing is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 9, 2012, 03:07 PM   #9
zioxide
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Massachusetts
Republicans just need things to bitch about apparently.

If he was using taxpayer money to pay for the inauguration celebrations you all would have your panties in a wad too.

You can't have it both ways.
zioxide is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 9, 2012, 03:27 PM   #10
SLC Flyfishing
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
SLC Flyfishing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
Republicans just need things to bitch about apparently.

If he was using taxpayer money to pay for the inauguration celebrations you all would have your panties in a wad too.

You can't have it both ways.


So no insight into why Obama is completely changing his stance then? You'd rather not answer and instead just focus on republicans (whom this has nothing to do with really).

Thanks for your "contribution" to the discussion.
__________________
Life is a grave, and I dig it
SLC Flyfishing is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 9, 2012, 04:35 PM   #11
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing View Post
No corporate funds for Obama events until now? Could it be because he knows there's no election to lose anymore if this upsets his constituents?
So as he has no more elections to win, why exactly would he just do what the corporate paymasters for the inauguration wanted?
__________________
Actually it does make sense. Man created god, so if we exist, He exists. - obeygiant
Eraserhead is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 9, 2012, 04:45 PM   #12
SLC Flyfishing
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
SLC Flyfishing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
So as he has no more elections to win, why exactly would he just do what the corporate paymasters for the inauguration wanted?
I think you misunderstand my question. I'm saying he could potentially stand to lose votes over something like this. Hence why he had banned corporate funds in the past.

Now that he doesn't have to please voters (not going to be running for office anymore) he goes ahead and says corporations can donate money, the more the better?

That's what it looks like to me anyway
SLC Flyfishing is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 9, 2012, 04:50 PM   #13
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Unless (beyond advertising) the corporations are going to gain something out of this what is the problem?
__________________
Actually it does make sense. Man created god, so if we exist, He exists. - obeygiant
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 9, 2012, 04:56 PM   #14
SLC Flyfishing
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
SLC Flyfishing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
Unless (beyond advertising) the corporations are going to gain something out of this what is the problem?
I mainly don't like hypocrisy, if corporate funds were banned before out of principle, why are they suddenly being encouraged?

Also, I don't think corporations should be financing any politician in any way. It's one of the few things I respected about Obama in the past, he seemed above all that. but that's no longer the case apparently.

Obama can claim transparency all he likes, but as soon as he signs a bill that helps one of these donors, or vetoes one that harms them; or for that matter, does the opposite for a competing corporation, the conflict of interest accusations will begin to fly.

I'd say the same regardless of who was being sworn in.

(spoken as someone who voted for neither Obama or Romney)
__________________
Life is a grave, and I dig it
SLC Flyfishing is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 9, 2012, 05:24 PM   #15
dscuber9000
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Indiana, US
I don't think Obama is really concerned with, or even involved in, his re-election party. To quote your article:

Quote:
President Obama’s inaugural committee has decided to accept unlimited corporate donations to help fund the event...
Even then, I'd call this more of a compromise than a flip-flop.

Quote:
“Our goal is to make sure that we will meet the fundraising requirements for this civic event after the most expensive presidential campaign in history,” spokeswoman Addie Whisenant said in a statement. “To ensure continued transparency, all names of donors will be posted to a regularly updated website.”

The committee is still barring lobbyists and political action committees from donating. They are establishing a system for vetting such donations, and won’t accept donations from corporations that accepted stimulus funding and haven’t paid the money back, for example.
As far as controversies go, this one is a bit of a yawner.
__________________
MacBook Pro 13" (Mid-2009) 2.26GHz | 320GB, 7200RPM | 4GB RAM
16GB iPhone 4S
dscuber9000 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 9, 2012, 05:45 PM   #16
zioxide
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Massachusetts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing View Post


So no insight into why Obama is completely changing his stance then? You'd rather not answer and instead just focus on republicans (whom this has nothing to do with really).

Thanks for your "contribution" to the discussion.
First of all, you should probably read the article you posted.

Quote:
The decision to accept unlimited corporate donations, first reported by Politico, comes from a newly-formed committee that has several members with deep Massachusetts ties.
As we can see from the article, this decision was made by the people running the inaugural committee, not President Obama. I'm sure he has much more important things to do than figuring out how to pay for a party.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing View Post
Now that he doesn't have to please voters (not going to be running for office anymore) he goes ahead and says corporations can donate money, the more the better?
You would think that now that he won't be running for any office anymore then people could stop the pointless Obama bashing over trivial issues like this because there's just no point anymore. It's not like you need some garbage like this to try to sway voters again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing View Post
I mainly don't like hypocrisy, if corporate funds were banned before out of principle, why are they suddenly being encouraged?
First of all, it's JUST for the inauguration celebrations for the PRESIDENT of the United States. It's not a partisan thing at all. If corporations want to donate money to help pay for the Presidential inauguration, then more power to them. It's not like the government has millions of dollars just sitting around for a rainy day.

Quote:
Also, I don't think corporations should be financing any politician in any way. It's one of the few things I respected about Obama in the past, he seemed above all that. but that's no longer the case apparently.
I don't like the fact that money drives politics either, but it is what it is. None of us have the power (money) to change the system so we might as well use it to our advantage. And President Obama has had plenty of big donors too.

Quote:
Obama can claim transparency all he likes, but as soon as he signs a bill that helps one of these donors, or vetoes one that harms them; or for that matter, does the opposite for a competing corporation, the conflict of interest accusations will begin to fly.
I donated money to President Obama's election campaign in 2008 and then he signed in to law the health care bill which let me stay on my parents insurance for another two years. Is that a conflict of interest too?

There is a major difference between a person or corporation donating money to someone's election campaign on the premise that they will do something for you once in office and donating money to the committee organizing the inauguration to help pay for the celebrations.
zioxide is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 9, 2012, 05:46 PM   #17
iJohnHenry
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: On tenterhooks
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing View Post
I can see how it could have read that way though so I'm glad the mods fixed it.
Gotta love the Mods.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing View Post
No corporate funds for Obama events until now?
WTH is this?

Since when has an Presidential Inauguration become an Obama event??
iJohnHenry is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 9, 2012, 05:57 PM   #18
SLC Flyfishing
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
SLC Flyfishing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Quote:
Originally Posted by iJohnHenry View Post



WTH is this?

Since when has an Presidential Inauguration become an Obama event??
Since 2008? I thought this was common knowledge. And Obama had a no corporate funds policy then, and for the democratic convention this year too. Now suddenly, that policy has been turned 180.
__________________
Life is a grave, and I dig it
SLC Flyfishing is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 9, 2012, 05:59 PM   #19
Peace
macrumors P6
 
Peace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Space--The ONLY Frontier
“Our goal is to make sure that we will meet the fundraising requirements for this civic event after the most expensive presidential campaign in history,” spokeswoman Addie Whisenant said in a statement. “To ensure continued transparency, all names of donors will be posted to a regularly updated website.”

The committee is still barring lobbyists and political action committees from donating. They are establishing a system for vetting such donations, and won’t accept donations from corporations that accepted stimulus funding and haven’t paid the money back, for example.
Peace is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 9, 2012, 06:05 PM   #20
SLC Flyfishing
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
SLC Flyfishing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
First of all, you should probably read the article you posted.
I did. What do you think I didn't understand about it?


Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
As we can see from the article, this decision was made by the people running the inaugural committee, not President Obama. I'm sure he has much more important things to do than figuring out how to pay for a party.
You're both correct, and incorrect. Maybe someone made the actual change in policy, but Obama is still in charge, right? Surely he's aware of the fact that the party is now going to be funded by corporate donations? If not then that's a huge problem (for obvious reasons). His policy in the past has always been that this was not acceptable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
You would think that now that he won't be running for any office anymore then people could stop the pointless Obama bashing over trivial issues like this because there's just no point anymore. It's not like you need some garbage like this to try to sway voters again.
He's going to be my president for 4 more years, it's not unreasonable for me to take an interest in his ethics. Expecially now that all the pressure to seem ethical is gone. What else will he do in his second term? Clinton stole a bunch of land from the school system trust in my home state during his second term and made a national monument that nobody uses. What will Obama do now that he's shown himself willing to abandon principle when there's nothing to gain from it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
First of all, it's JUST for the inauguration celebrations for the PRESIDENT of the United States. It's not a partisan thing at all. If corporations want to donate money to help pay for the Presidential inauguration, then more power to them. It's not like the government has millions of dollars just sitting around for a rainy day.
Your opinion, not mine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
I don't like the fact that money drives politics either, but it is what it is. None of us have the power (money) to change the system so we might as well use it to our advantage. And President Obama has had plenty of big donors too.
Great attitude! Can't beat em'...join em'. That's created so much positive change in the past.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
I donated money to President Obama's election campaign in 2008 and then he signed in to law the health care bill which let me stay on my parents insurance for another two years. Is that a conflict of interest too?
Absolutely not, you're a citizen of the USA, who he's sworn to serve. He is not sworn to protect corporations or business interests though, so I'm sure you can see why that would be a conflict of interest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
There is a major difference between a person or corporation donating money to someone's election campaign on the premise that they will do something for you once in office and donating money to the committee organizing the inauguration to help pay for the celebrations.
I disagree.
__________________
Life is a grave, and I dig it
SLC Flyfishing is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 9, 2012, 06:06 PM   #21
iJohnHenry
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: On tenterhooks
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing View Post
Since 2008? I thought this was common knowledge.
Oh, silly me.

I thought you guys had ~200 years worth by now.
iJohnHenry is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 9, 2012, 06:10 PM   #22
Peace
macrumors P6
 
Peace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Space--The ONLY Frontier
Obama won. Get over it and give up some of that corporate tax money due the US.
Peace is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 9, 2012, 06:13 PM   #23
SLC Flyfishing
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
SLC Flyfishing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Portland, OR
So I'm the only one who thinks this is a stark reversal of ethics on Obama's part?...

OK then, good talk everyone!
__________________
Life is a grave, and I dig it
SLC Flyfishing is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 9, 2012, 06:16 PM   #24
Zombie Acorn
macrumors 65816
 
Zombie Acorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLC Flyfishing View Post
So I'm the only one who thinks this is a stark reversal of ethics on Obama's part?...

OK then, good talk everyone!
They don't want to discuss the reason for the change in policy, they want to powder over it and rip on anyone who even brings it up.
Zombie Acorn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 9, 2012, 06:38 PM   #25
SLC Flyfishing
Thread Starter
macrumors 65816
 
SLC Flyfishing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn View Post
They don't want to discuss the reason for the change in policy, they want to powder over it and rip on anyone who even brings it up.
That much is apparent.
__________________
Life is a grave, and I dig it
SLC Flyfishing is offline   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
President Obama Still Not Allowed to Have an iPhone Southern Dad Politics, Religion, Social Issues 19 May 2, 2014 06:14 PM
Off-topc from President Obama State of Union thread vdubbeet Wasteland 166 Feb 13, 2013 02:11 AM
Inauguration 2013: President Barack Obama SilentPanda Politics, Religion, Social Issues 83 Jan 30, 2013 03:58 PM
Romney's son says he wanted to ‘Take A Swing At’ President Obama MadeTheSwitch Politics, Religion, Social Issues 118 Oct 26, 2012 07:16 AM
How effective a president has Obama been? jeremy h Politics, Religion, Social Issues 29 Sep 20, 2012 11:00 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:38 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC