Obama changes DNC rules

motivez · 06-05-2008, 02:30 PM

Obama aims to make openness an issue
By: Mike Allen
June 5, 2008 11:04 AM EST

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is moving on two fronts to make transparency a linchpin of his campaign, opening his fundraisers to reporters and clamping down on the Democratic National Committee’s fundraising from Washington insiders.

The moves, announced on his second full day as the party’s de facto presidential nominee, are designed to drive a campaign message of change versus more of the same, aides said.

His likely opponent, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), closes his fundraisers to the press. Beginning last night, Obama will open all of his fundraisers to at least a pool reporter, who will share the information with the rest of the press corps.

Beginning Thursday, the DNC will no longer accept checks from federal lobbyists or political action committees, mirroring the strict standard Obama adopted for his presidential campaign.

“This is an important step that shows Sen. Obama is willing to take tough steps to change the way Washington works,” said Dan Pfeiffer, the campaign’s deputy communications director.

The policy, which will not hurt fundraising appreciably, is not retroactive.

Obama aims to make openness an issue - Mike Allen - Politico.com

This is pretty cool, he's following through on his promises to change the way Washington works and he's not even President yet.

I see it as a pretty big deal that he's imposing the rules on the DNC as well and not just his campaign, because it shows he's not going to let people he's associated with take the money he's refusing and use it to benefit his campaign indirectly.. which wouldn't be much of a principled stand to begin with.

Also, letting reporters into his fundraising is a big deal, he really wants the government and his campaign and the way things work to be open from everything he's said, and now he's following through with it for the remainder of this campaign.

He definitely just earned a few points in my book.

kinggovernor · 06-05-2008, 02:33 PM

well he got burnt with the bitter comment, it would make sense that he would want everything public now

motivez · 06-05-2008, 02:37 PM

I doubt that had much to do with it, it's really a non issue except to people who had no intention of voting for him in the first place.

Simius · 06-05-2008, 02:41 PM

Making the DNC follow the same principles as far as fund raising goes is a great idea. I'm sort of surprised he took such a step but then again, I reckon losing a bit of money via the DNC's fundraising is worth it for the principle of not accepting lobbyist help and then being in debt to them down the line.

edit: I'm stealing this, btw... but I'll link back to here since this was my source.

JaJae · 06-05-2008, 02:50 PM

I don't think his bitter comment has anything to do with this at all. This is the type of campaign he has been dedicated towards running. I expected something like this from him regarding his national fundraising.

Ardentfrost · 06-05-2008, 03:05 PM

This sort of thing is why I've been hoping he'd get the Democratic nomination. Where McCain and Hilary criticize him being "inexperienced" I see that as not been in the game long enough to be corrupted like they are.

He's the perfect candidate to get rules passed that would allow voters to make more informed decisions in the future.

thewise1 · 06-05-2008, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

This sort of thing is why I've been hoping he'd get the Democratic nomination. Where McCain and Hilary criticize him being "inexperienced" I see that as not been in the game long enough to be corrupted like they are.

He's the perfect candidate to get rules passed that would allow voters to make more informed decisions in the future.

Even though some of his politics scare me, I'm excited to see this kind of change taking place. I have to admit that even where I disagree with his politics, I'm often tempted to just see where he takes it and give him a chance because I'm curious about the results.

motivez · 06-05-2008, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

This sort of thing is why I've been hoping he'd get the Democratic nomination. Where McCain and Hilary criticize him being "inexperienced" I see that as not been in the game long enough to be corrupted like they are.

He's the perfect candidate to get rules passed that would allow voters to make more informed decisions in the future.

Originally Posted by thewise1

Even though some of his politics scare me, I'm excited to see this kind of change taking place. I have to admit that even where I disagree with his politics, I'm often tempted to just see where he takes it and give him a chance because I'm curious about the results.

That almost sounds like support

You guys aren't considering voting for him though, right?

JaJae · 06-05-2008, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

This sort of thing is why I've been hoping he'd get the Democratic nomination. Where McCain and Hilary criticize him being "inexperienced" I see that as not been in the game long enough to be corrupted like they are.

He's the perfect candidate to get rules passed that would allow voters to make more informed decisions in the future.

I agree with this post a lot. The reason I prefer Obama isn't because I agree with the majority of his political beliefs. In reality, I probably agree with McCain a bit more and would much prefer a president with veto power because I believe the Democrats will take a huge lead in the senate and house. However, I believe McCain and Hillary would say anything to get elected and care more about their political careers and stature than doing the right thing and running an ethical presidency. I do not wish to vote for an unethical politician. We need to break the cycle and send a message to Washington that we do not want career corrupted politicians in office and prefer someone who stands on principles and not just waffling campaign slogans to fit the political market.

thewise1 · 06-05-2008, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

That almost sounds like support

You guys aren't considering voting for him though, right?

There are maybe 3-5 major issues that I disagree with him on that mean I can't really support the guy, but I do support a lot of the individual things he wants to do.

Even though I'm probably going to end up voting Barr, I think I'd rather have Obama win and drive us a little more toward socialism than have McCain win and drive us a little closer to big brother. The difference in preference isn't huge and is pushed that way by Obama's other ideas that I think are actually really fantastic, whereas McCain has almost zero ideas that I really like. His whole campaign is 'hurr hurr hurr lets kill us some towelheads' while Obama has articulated real, actual ideas and although I disagree with some of them, in the country we live in I'm not going to avoid them in the long run, so I might as well see if he can implement them well.

Dunno if that makes sense.

Ardentfrost · 06-05-2008, 03:50 PM

I can't morally support Obama at the ballot box, but changes such as these pave the way for libertarians in the future. And even if it's not enough to ever get a libertarian elected, at LEAST it reduces the opportunity for corruption in our current government.

Seriously though, it should be no surprise that we support Democrats on some issues, just as we support Republicans on some issues. A libertarian is practically a mix of the two (not exactly, but we often agree with different sides depending on the issue)

nbiggershaft · 06-05-2008, 04:42 PM

Do we know if he for sure has gone back on his public financing pledge?

kinggovernor · 06-05-2008, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I doubt that had much to do with it, it's really a non issue except to people who had no intention of voting for him in the first place.

I disagree and the proof is in the surge Hillary had after it.

kombayn · 06-05-2008, 06:47 PM

^I agree too. Which is why I think Obama needs to pick Sebelius so he can get back a majority of the disenchanted Hillary voters.

NOTE: I watched the Daily Show last night and they were at Hillary's rally. This gay man who was Hillary voter said, "I'm gay as they come and if she isn't the nominee than I'm voting McCain!" That made no sense to me what-so-ever but hey... His choice right?

Scrum · 06-05-2008, 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I disagree and the proof is in the surge Hillary had after it.

What surge?

kinggovernor · 06-06-2008, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by Scrum

What surge?

the states she took while he was outspending her 4-1

David Octavius · 06-06-2008, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

the states she took while he was outspending her 4-1

You mean the states where she had an over 20% lead for over a year? Seems to be she finally won the states she was supposed to win all a long. She didn't surge, she merely, and finally, lived up to expectations after getting trounced in a string of primary/caucuses

DosEquis · 06-06-2008, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

the states she took while he was outspending her 4-1

She already had huge leads in those states. He was the one that surged and ultimately will get the nomination.

IminWonderland · 06-08-2008, 09:47 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

Even though some of his politics scare me, I'm excited to see this kind of change taking place. I have to admit that even where I disagree with his politics, I'm often tempted to just see where he takes it and give him a chance because I'm curious about the results.

You're post reminds me of the title of a Dr. Suess Book "Oh the places we'll go" or something like that....

kinggovernor · 06-09-2008, 01:08 AM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

She already had huge leads in those states. He was the one that surged and ultimately will get the nomination.

he definitely didn't surge across the finish line, it was more like a stumble