Vote Hope 2008 - Obama's supporters get around money limit

[Alamom]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/200...

San Francisco Chronicle
Obama's supporters get around money limit
Lance Williams, Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, August 8, 2007


California supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama are using a controversial political committee to rake in donations in excess of what is allowed under tough federal campaign finance laws. Exploiting a legal loophole, the Obama supporters have set up a so-called 527 group - an unregulated committee of the type deployed by Republican Swift Boat Veterans in the 2004 presidential campaign - as a centerpiece of political fundraising for the California Democratic primary in February.

So far, wealthy donors have written checks in the amounts of $90,000 and $50,000 to "Vote Hope 2008," the Obama supporters' 527 group, federal records show. The group is led by San Francisco lawyer Steve Phillips, son-in-law of wealthy financier and Democratic political donor Herbert Sandler. Named for the section of the U.S. tax code that regulates these groups - and independent of the input or control of political candidates - 527 groups aren't subject to the Federal Election Commission's legal limit on contributions of $2,300 per donor per election.

>

The Vote Hope Web site says their goal is to "deliver California for Barack Obama" by mobilizing 500,000 Democrats to cast absentee ballots in the primary. Spokeswoman Jenifer Ancona said Vote Hope is independent of Obama's campaign, and complies with all laws. Together, the political action committee and the 527 group hope to raise and spend $3 million on what Ancona called "a positive campaign, a grassroots campaign to increase voter turnout." Experts say political activists and wealthy donors, liberal and conservative alike, are turning to 527s to sidestep a law enacted by Congress in 2002 to try to blunt the influence of big money on national politics. The law, for the first time, capped contributions to political action committees. Since then, millions in political money have begun flowing to 527 groups.

>

In his campaign against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, former Sen. John Edwards and the rest of the Democratic field, Obama has advocated campaign finance reform and declared he will not accept any money from PACs.

In the Senate, he has also criticized 527 groups. After the 2004 election, when the Swift Boat Veterans spent millions to attack Democrat John Kerry's Vietnam War record, Obama called their campaign "American politics at its worst" and "a fraud being perpetrated on the American people." The first-term senator said he might sponsor a bill to outlaw 527 groups entirely, according to news accounts.

>

But with a PAC and a 527 group in place, wealthy donors could be directed to "a place where you can go and give limitless funds," the source said. "It basically blows a hole in what we know as campaign finance limits."
None of Obama's rivals is believed to have set up fundraising mechanisms similar to Vote Hope, according to experts who have reviewed 527 committee filings at the Internal Revenue Service.


Check it out;

www.votehope2008.org

[peacebird]

1. another reason to vote for Edwards!

[bpeale]

12. amen to that! Edwards 2008

[Clark2008]

13. Another?

I haven't found one yet.

[FrenchieCat]

31. Why?

:shrug:

From the 2008 campaign:

Mr. Edwards,

who reported this year that he had assets of nearly $30 million, came up with a novel solution, creating a nonprofit organization with the stated mission of fighting poverty. The organization, the Center for Promise and Opportunity, raised $1.3 million in 2005, and — unlike a sister charity he created to raise scholarship money for poor students — the main beneficiary of the center’s fund-raising was Mr. Edwards himself, tax filings show.

The organization became a big part of a shadow political apparatus for Mr. Edwards after his defeat as the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004 and before the start of his presidential bid this time around. Its officers were members of his political staff, and it helped pay for his nearly constant travel, including to early primary states.

While Mr. Edwards said the organization’s purpose was “making the eradication of poverty the cause of this generation,” its federal filings say it financed “retreats and seminars” with foreign policy experts on Iraq and national security issues. Unlike the scholarship charity, donations to it were not tax deductible, and, significantly, it did not have to disclose its donors — as political action committees and other political fund-raising vehicles do — and there were no limits on the size of individual donations
<>
But it was his use of a tax-exempt organization to finance his travel and employ people connected to his past and current campaigns that went beyond what most other prospective candidates have done before pursuing national office. And according to experts on nonprofit foundations, Edwards pushed at the boundaries of how far such organizations can venture into the political realm. Such entities, which are regulated under Section 501C-4 of the tax code, can engage in advocacy but cannot make partisan political activities their primary purpose without risking loss of their tax-exempt status.

Because the organization is not required to disclose its donors — and the campaign declined to do so
<>
Mr. Edwards depended for his activities in large part on donations from supporters. In addition to the two nonprofit organizations, he created a leadership political action committee and a 527 “soft money” organization that also shared the same name: the OneAmerica Committee. These two committees each allowed donors to give more than the $2,300 per person limit in a presidential primary or general election, and, in some cases, to give in unlimited amounts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/us/politics/22edwards.html?ex=1186718400&en=f8accf54c35ca2b8&ei=5070
------------------------------------------------------


From the 2004 campaign.........

Several prominent law firms have bundled large numbers of contributions to Edwards' Senate and presidential campaigns and to New American Optimists, a political action committee Edwards set up to help other Democrats and further his own career.

• Girardi & Keese gave $387,875 to help Edwards. The firm is famous for representing a small California town in a suit against Pacific Gas & Electric, a case that was the basis for the Julia Roberts movie Erin Brockovich.

• Baron & Budd, a Dallas firm, has given $296,650 to Edwards since he went into politics. Partner Fred Baron, who raised money nationally for Edwards' presidential bid, is a former president of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, which lobbies on behalf of plaintiffs' lawyers.

Within days after Edwards dropped out of the presidential race, he invited Baron and 150 of his top fundraisers to a reception in Washington, and arranged for the survivor of the primaries, Sen. John Kerry, to woo the crowd to raise money for his campaign.

In all, 16 of the top 20 career sources for Edwards' campaign money are law firms, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan group that studies money in politics.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-07-06-edwards-finances_x.htm

[Alamom]

2. kick

[beastieboy]

3. But, but Hillary takes money from lobbyists!

[sandnsea]

4. "independent of Obama's campaign"

A bunch of people who we aren't even sure of their real motives.

[Karmadillo]

5. The President of Canada frowns on this sort of behavior.

nt

[rinsd]

10. Zing!

[emilyg]

20. LOL - good one

[Ethelk2044]

6. Obama's Campaign does not have anything to do with this - Bull Shit Post

[Alamom]

29. He takes their money. Call Bull-Shit all day, but he takes the money. nm

[sandnsea]

7. Senator does not approve

A spokesman for Mr. Obama said the senator did not approve. “Obama thinks that candidates should be accountable for the campaigns they run, the donations they receive and the money they spend,” the spokesman, Bill Burton, said. “It is our hope that anyone who supports Obama does so directly through his campaign.”

http://prognosisprogress.blogspot.com/

[rinsd]

9. He did not ask them to cease and desist. His campaign gave a legal answer.

By law they can't be involved but they certainly aren't looking to stop this from happening.

[sandnsea]

11. The group is fine, the money isn't

and they clearly said so.

[rinsd]

15. So is the Obama campaign going to ask this group to stop collecting money?

[sandnsea]

16. well I just posted their request

I know you will never see it and there isn't a thing I can do about that.

[rinsd]

18. This?

"A spokesman for Mr. Obama said the senator did not approve. “Obama thinks that candidates should be accountable for the campaigns they run, the donations they receive and the money they spend,” the spokesman, Bill Burton, said. “It is our hope that anyone who supports Obama does so directly through his campaign.”

This is wink wink, nod nod old school politics. We don't approve but there's nothing we can do to stop it.

[rinsd]

32. Obama has come out with a more forceful statement.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3437113

[sandnsea]

34. Support the campaign directly

It says the same thing. Only in the delusional world of the Hillary supporter is there a difference between the two statements.

[rinsd]

35. Oh well I tried to do the fair thing.

You rather act like an asshole.

[mckeown1128]

33. He already has......nt

[rinsd]

36. I was the one who posted the OP detailing that (nt)

[durrrty libby]

14. "“It is our hope that anyone who supports Obama does so directly through his campaign.”

:wink: :wink:

[sandnsea]

17. Better than Murdoch n/t

[durrrty libby]

19. "Better than Murdoch " Yes, for the delusional

[sandnsea]

23. Democratic activists AREN'T better than Murdoch???

:crazy:

[rinsd]

24. Earlier you were questioning their motives as if this were a setup on Obama.

Now they're Democratic activists.

Thank god I have a swivel chair so I can follow the course of your thinking.

[durrrty libby]

25. Please be careful. Whiplash is no joke and easily contracted around here

And I guess sleazy dems are better than unproven bogeymen

[rinsd]

28. Not sure if I am ready to call them sleazy.

I don't like Democrats going into battle unarmed based on niceties.

I also do not like a Democrat doing so while upon his high horse castigating others.

[sandnsea]

26. The Sandlers are HUGE Dem supporters

It wouldn't surprise me a bit for someone to set up a phony group in order to smear Obama. But either way, they are Dem activists.

[rinsd]

27. I know they are. But your first instinct was to claim slimy motives without evidence.

Which is very telling.

[sandnsea]

30. Billionaires with slimy motives???

Oh because that never happens. :eyes:

[rinsd]

8. Your link is broken

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/08/08/MN9JREV751.DTL

[Alamom]

21. Try this.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/08/08/MN9JREV751.DTL

[Alamom]

22. I also have another source. - The Boston Globe

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/07/21/pac_tries_new_tactic_to_boost_obama_run/


The Boston Globe

PAC tries new tactic to boost Obama run
Sees way around spending limits



WASHINGTON -- The website has the look and feel of Barack Obama's official page, and the headline says it all: "Bank it for Barack." The site asks for contributions of up to $5,000 per person to help the Illinois Democrat win the crucial state of California. The effort employs a tactic that could transform the way campaign-related money is collected and spent in presidential campaign s .

The group sponsoring the Web page is not Obama's campaign, but an independent political action committee called Vote Hope 2008, which says that its goal is to help Obama become president and that it will spend $2 million to get out the vote for him.

Federal law prohibits political action committees, or PACs, from spending more than $5,000 in support of a candidate.

>

What's more, the group said contributors who have given the maximum $2,300 individual do nation to Obama's campaign can give $5,000 to Vote Hope 2008, the maximum individual donation to a PAC.

Vote Hope then would spend these donations promoting Obama, giving donors a way to nearly triple their maximum contribution to Obama's cause.