Obama Contributions: Moving On MoveOn's Money

Isn't Obama pushing the 527 limitations on coordination with a campaign which they are not allowed to do by law?

Obama paid  MoveOn  ‘credit card fees’ of $18,000 because they ‘processed campaign contributions’ for the Obama campaign. When did MoveOn become a bank or a finance company?   Was Obama REIMBURSING MoveOn for their cost to process contributions for the Obama campaign?   Why would Obama do this unless MoveOn was giving the contributions to his campaign?  They cannot legally give money to Obama.  It appears they did.

MoveOn.org spent 1.5 million  setting up Obama's facebook page- Cost me nothing to set up mine---See attached FEC info.  UPDATE: CORRECTION SEE BELOW(not for set up, but for ads)

Download 2008iedetail.xls (hat tip to Cathy and Laura, super sleuths, great Americans)

Barack has been accused of:  Contributions-Excessive;  Contributions-Prohibited;  Electioneering in the 2006 election in the case of CITIZENS FOR GIANNOULIAN aka GIANNOULIAS FOR TREASURER

UPDATE: American Thinker: Soros, Obama, and the Millionaires Exception (hat tip Cathy)

Because Obama was running against Blair Hull in the primary and then Jack Ryan in the general (both multi-millionaires), Obama could, and did, receive especially large donations from individuals, to so-called "millionaires exception." Normally individuals are limited to giving $2300 to candidates in federal elections, but when candidates are running against millionaires, these limits are lifted and candidates are allowed to receive up to $12,000 from a single individual. Soros and his family gave Barack Obama $60,000. This does not include money that Soros was able to funnel to so-called 527 groups (Moveon.org, for example) that have also been politically active; nor does it include money that Soros was able to raise from tapping a network of friends, business associates, and employees.

After taking advantage of the special freedom to raise large amounts of money from influential individuals, and as the campaigns entered their closing rounds, news was leaked to media outlets that both Hull and Ryan had personal scandals associated with them. The release of this news devastated both of their campaigns, leading to an easy run to victory for Obama in the primary and then in the general election. The New York Times Magazine revealed earlier in the year that David Axelrod, Obama's chief political and media adviser, may well have been behind the leak of the story that doomed the Hull candidacy as the primary reached its home stretch.

Axelrod is known for operating in this gray area, part idealist, part hired muscle. It is difficult to discuss Axelrod in certain circles in Chicago without the matter of the Blair Hull divorce papers coming up. As the 2004 Senate primary neared, it was clear that it was a contest between two people: the millionaire liberal, Hull, who was leading in the polls, and Obama, who had built an impressive grass-roots campaign. About a month before the vote, The Chicago Tribune revealed, near the bottom of a long profile of Hull, that during a divorce proceeding, Hull's second wife filed for an order of protection. In the following few days, the matter erupted into a full-fledged scandal that ended up destroying the Hull campaign and handing Obama an easy primary victory. The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had "worked aggressively behind the scenes" to push the story. But there are those in Chicago who believe that Axelrod had an even more significant role - that he leaked the initial story. They note that before signing on with Obama, Axelrod interviewed with Hull. They also point out that Obama's TV ad campaign started at almost the same time. Axelrod swears up and down that "we had nothing to do with it" and that the campaign's television ad schedule was long planned. "An aura grows up around you, and people assume everything emanates from you," he told me.

UPDATE: Cathy sent this for clarification:

About MoveOn.org Political Action

MoveOn.org Political Action, one of the largest Political Action Committees in the country, brings real Americans into politics to fight for a more progressive America and elect progressive candidates. It conducts major campaigns, from its work to protect the Supreme Court from a hard-right justice to its campaign to defeat the right wing and elect moderates and progressives in 2008. But in contrast to most PACs, which funnel industry contributions to candidates in exchange for access, MoveOn.org Political Action brings hundreds of thousands of small donors together to elect candidates who will represent the American people. With one secure online credit card transaction, you can immediately make contributions to several campaigns. All contributions go to the individual campaigns in the amounts you specify. MoveOn.org Political Action takes care of all the required FEC paperwork by transmitting necessary contributor information to each campaign.

Because it’s a federal PAC, MoveOn.org Political Action can’t accept donations greater than $5,000. And in fact, MoveOn.org Political Action is mostly funded by people who give less than $100 – folks who don’t have a lot of money but want to see a change. Through 2004, MoveOn.org Political Action raised approximately $11 million for 81 candidates from over 300,000 donors. In 2005, MoveOn.org Political Action grew to 3.2 million members and 125,000 members contributed $9 million to progressive candidates and campaigns (average donation: $45).

UPDATE CORRECTION:sLIMGUY ADVISED:

From just a quick glance that wasn't for a facebook site but for reimbursement of advertisements on facebook that were done by moveon. I don't have a facebook account so I don't know what the ads were saying that they were serving up.

So technically it wasn't for creation of a site but spreading the word.  Similar to a google adsense buy which they also did.

[...]

Another questionable set of line items shows BHO giving money to something called "Republican Majority Campaign"

But I don't know the legal end ..not a lawyer but for BHO to give moveon money to run a moveon ad is really strange in a mutual backscratch circle kind of way.

It is like his campaign getting an issue ad out there without it being direct from them. Would have to figure out what the ad content was and did it advocate BHO or a position he holds only or was it an over the line anti McCain ad..??

Comments

[kobi]

i wish moveon would just move on

[kobi]

moveon.org is a prime example of values distortion masquerading as the fight for peace and justice. it is a most insidious form of media manipulation.

[SlimGuy]

A bit of a clarification of the 5000.00 limit.

If I wanted to give moveon the money and let them do with it as they wished the 5000.00 would come into play since it is going to that organization for their purposes.

However if they are acting as a 'bundler broker' to pipeline donations for me I could give 1000.00 each to 100 different candidates and put it on one credit card transaction. As long as I did not violate my total of donations for a given candidate from other donations in the past I would be good to go.

[SlimGuy]

The issue here is one that needs some clarity.

a 527 is supposed to be an 'issue based' organization. They can not over coordinate or support a particular candidate but the intent of the exemption is to allow a grass roots lobby for an issue.

So if I support gun ownership rights I can give to the NRA PAC related to that or to another 527 group that supports the same agenda.

I can donate to candidates that also support my personal agenda.

But when a 527 starts crossing the line into candidate advocacy that is where they trip over the legalities.

That was the whole basis when a FEC complain a while back was filed about Kos and ended up ruling in their favor.

I am not versed enough in the legal end of it to address the cost recovery for credit card fees and how that all goes.

[SlimGuy]

The bottom line is no matter how much people try to tighten up the laws on donations there are too many work arounds that are still legal.

None of the laws try to kill off the small individual donor. What they are supposed to be going after is the deep pocket type.

But I can do dozens of work arounds that are totally legal to avoid the limitations.

I could donate up to 4600.00 directly to Obama. Then I could donate 5000.00 to his Hope PAC or whatever it was named. It is mostly inactive from what I see but it does still exist on the books.

He can be transferred money from other PACS I donate to such as the various congressional leadership PACS or State Party PACS and so forth. I could give 5000.00 each to those as a conduit.

Another big loophole is I could give 1 million dollars to the Tides Foundation and they could parcel the money as a directed donation steam by me and don't even have to disclose who gave the million to them. That is a large way Tides funds themself in that they take a handler fee off the top.

Foundations can swap donations between each other like teenage kids swapping spit at the prom to obscure the fiscal path of the funds.

They can parse the money down to a tree of supported groups and have them do their own donations to PAC funds out of the proceeds. The group takes say a 30% cut to support their agenda and passes 70% through to designated places to be funded.

It is all just a book keeping shuffle around end around.

[Jeremiah]

Berkeley 94709 - the affluent, plush, northside of town. Figures.